Myths and Facts
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding and myth-making about how Tasmania's relationship laws operate and who they affect.
Some supporters of marriage or marriage-like recognition for same-sex couples are particularly prone to labelling Tasmania's relationships registry a watered-down civil union scheme.
They mistake the absence of marriage-like features in Tasmania's relationship laws as a retreat from the challenge of equal marriage, when in fact it shows that Tasmanian law has moved further beyond marriage and conjugality than any other jurisdiction in the world.
Here a few of the most common myths, with corrective facts.
1. The Tasmanian relationships registry is a watered-down, second-rate civil union scheme
The Tasmanian Relationships Act is the most progressive relationships law in the world. It does away with the traditional hierarchy of legal relationships by removing from state law references to traditional unions and old-fashioned terms like husband and wife, and establishing in their place two virtually equal categories, significant relationship (conjugal) and caring relationship (non-conjugal). The definitions of these relationships are so broad they include virtually any two people who believe themselves to be in a relationship worthy of legal protection. No other law in the world goes this far in formally recognising and giving equality to such a diverse range of relationships under such new and culturally unencumbered categories and terminology.
2. The Tasmanian relationships registry does not create new legal relationships like a marriage or a civil union, it simply recognises existing relationships
This is untrue. Registering a relationship in Tasmania creates a new legal relationship in exactly the same way as a civil union or a marriage
3. The Tasmanian relationships registry, while providing legal rights, does not grant social and cultural equality like marriage or civil unions.
By eliminating the traditional hierarchy of relationship categories the Tasmanian law actually goes further than any other in giving all relationships, same-sex and different sex, conjugal and non-conjugal legal, social and cultural equality. It certainly goes further than marriage which privileges conjugal relationships, and much further than ACT, UK or New Zealand-style civil unions which many people see as marriage-lite.
4. The Tasmanian scheme is demeaning to same-sex couples because it treats them the same as maiden aunts.
It's true that older companions in a non-sexual relationship have basically the same rights as same-sex couples under the Tasmanian Relationships Act. But this is because all couples are treated virtually equally regardless of the nature of their relationship. If heterosexual married or de facto couples were still part of a separate relationship category there might be some merit to this objection. But the new relationship categories established under the Act cover them too. Far from demeaning some people, the Tasmanian law uplifts everyone who, for whatever reason, has traditionally been disenfranchised by the exclusivity of old-style relationship laws.
5. The Tasmanian scheme doesn't allow for official ceremonies which create legal relationships.
It's true that there are no official ceremonies associated with relationship registration in Tasmania. But none of the ceremonies some people are so eager to recreate for same-sex couples give the relationships involved any legal standing. For example, a marriage or an ACT, UK or New Zealand-style civil union is only legal when it is registered, well after the ceremony (see point 7 below). Tasmanian same-sex couples are having their own ceremonies now, and they have no less and no greater impact on the legal existence of a relationship than any officially-sanctioned ceremony. More importantly, there is nothing to stop the Tasmanian scheme, or any schemes like it from including such ceremonies in the future.
6. The Tasmanian relationships registry must be bad because it has the endorsement of groups like the Australian Christian Lobby.
The truth is that the ACL lobbied against the Tasmanian Relationships Act before it was passed precisely because that law went so far beyond marriage into new realms of relationship recognition. The version of the Tasmanian legislation it endorsed in the ACT (and which was proposed by the Territory Liberals) was a version of the actual Tasmanian law that was stripped of all its progressive features.
7. A relationships registry is demeaning because registration is what you do to cars and dogs.
It's true that Tasmanian significant relationships go onto a relationships registry when they are formally recognised through what is called a Deed of Relationship. But only in the same way that marriages go onto a marriage registry when they are formally recognised. Put another way… A Tasmanian significant relationship is registered on a register in a registry by a Registrar. Marriages are registered on a register in a registry by a Registrar. What's the difference? There isn't any difference. It is demeaning and insulting to all those couples who have registered a Deed of Relationship in Tasmania to have their legal status compared to dog registration rather than marriage registration.
8. The Tasmanian Relationships Act is "less-than-equal" and a form of "apartheid" because it does not offer same-sex marriage.
It's true that the Tasmanian relationship law does not allow same-sex marriage. It is also true that entering into a marriage immediately invalidates a pre-existing Tasmanian Deed of Relationship. This is because under the Australian Constitution marriage is a federal government responsibility. The Tasmanian Government has no power over the discrimination that exists in federal marriage law. Further, if there is a conflict between state and national law, national law must prevail. To ensure equality in these circumstances, Tasmania's relationship law has gone beyond marriage altogether, redefining legal relationships along new lines and then treating all relationships, including marriages contracted under federal law, along these new lines (see point 1).
.
.
