not too much

Attorney-General Ruddock has made clear the blatantly predudical reasons for the federal government's rejection of the ACT's most recent attempt to legislate for same-sex civil partnerships. They are not worthy of celebration. This from today's Age, (by Kenneth Nguyen, 8 Feb 07)

Gay partnerships should not be celebrated with formal ceremonies, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says. Explaining the Federal Government's decision to block the ACT's latest gay partnerships bill, Mr Ruddock told ABC radio that its first objection was that "it involves a formal ceremony". "What it's doing is equating (gay partnerships) with marriage," he said yesterday.

The Civil Partnerships Bill -- which the Government has threatened to disallow if it is passed by the ACT -- makes no references to "ceremonies", but would require couples to make a declaration before a civil partnership notary and a witness. Responding to Mr Ruddock's comments, ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the ACT's bill did not impose any requirement for a ceremony. That would be an individual choice, he said. Mr Corbell also said the requirement that civil partnership declarations be made before a civil partnership notary was akin to the requirement that statutory declarations be made before an authorised person.

Mr Ruddock said marriage was a "cultural institution" that provided a basis on which children might be conceived and brought up and provided with proper support.

Mr Ruddock is wilfully misinterpreting the ACT's intentions. The ACT is not proposing same-sex marriages. In any case it does not have the power to do so, as marriage is a federal matter.

Mr Ruddock also cited concerns that the ACT bill would allow people aged 16 or 17 to enter civil partnerships if they obtained consent from the Children's Court and parents or guardians. I must admit to some concern on this matter myself.