Back the hell up there, Rodney
Apr 7th, 2008 by Rebecca
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise to those close to any of the state and territory civil unions battle to know that there’s been a fair bit of tension between the mainstream LGBT activists behind the ACT scheme and that have been lobbying for gay marriage, and the little clique surrounding Rodney Croome, who were responsible for the installation of the Tasmanian relationship registry scheme.
So far, it’s mostly been simmering below the surface in this campaign, apart from a few weeks ago, when a couple of Croome’s mates came and launched a rotten attack on Ryan on the ACT’s queer list - over comments that were actually made by yours truly, nonetheless. However, after a snide and obnoxious post from Croome a few days ago, I feel compelled to bite. To put it simply: to Croome and friends, back the fuck up, and get your hands off the scheme that our LGBT community demanded.
Croome has had a long habit of publicly pissing on the ACT’s Civil Partnerships Bill, and it’s precursor, the short-lived Civil Unions Act, because for him, it isn’t enough of an attack on traditional ideas of relationship recognition. Specifically, he hates that our legislation gives symbolic recognition to gay couples, as opposed it to it just being another legal contract. He’s always been highly evangelical about the scheme he designed, preaching about it being supposedly more radical, and touting a couple of technical changes he had made which technically (if to bugger all effect in practice) lessened the standing of marriage under Tasmanian state law. He carries significant standing in the gay community from the Tasmanian decriminalisation campaign in the 90s, but as far as I’m concerned, he’s been using the gay community as test subjects for his ideas about relationship recognition for years. I very strongly object to my rights being used as bait to push an agenda that I want no part of, especially when it means that I’m being made a second-class citizen in the process.
And that, he’s certainly managed to achieve. The movement for civil unions in most other states has been seriously set back by the emergence of an option that can be seen to give the gays some basic rights, but without any of that symbolic stuff that might suggest our relationships were, y’know, equal and stuff. The religious right loves it. We’re seeing a miserable relationship register instead of civil unions in Victoria for that very reason, and we’re still having to fight tooth and nail to stop the same thing from happening in the ACT. There’s the potential for it to get a whole lot worse - as I said at the last rally - if Kevin Rudd succeeds in instituting a scheme like this nationally, the movement for civil unions or gay marriage anywhere here will be set back twenty years. Relationship registers are a cancer in the battle for gay rights here, and Rodney Croome is responsible for that.
So I’m especially outraged that he’s now come out and started openly campaigning for the introduction of his pet scheme instead of the Civil Partnerships Bill, over the widely surveyed wishes of our own gay community. Unlike Croome, this community told our government loud and clear in 2006 that we wanted ceremonies, and it is the official position of both the territory’s LGBT lobby groups, the Campaign for Civil Unions and Good Process. I’m fed up with Croome speaking for our community here - as when, in this latest piece, he declares that what we all really want is a contract scheme without those troublesome ceremonies. It’s all more politically convenient after all, as who really wants to fight those buddies of ours in the religious right over something as trivial as having our relationships receive symbolic recognition before the law?
I’ve been holding myself back for a while (indeed, I’ve had a far more snarky post sitting around in my drafts folder for a couple months), but this needs to be said. The Tasmanian scheme simply doesn’t provide the same level of recognition. To put it bluntly - and Croome can marginalise this and dance around the point as much as he likes - it doesn’t provide for that symbolic recognition that comes with official ceremonies. As we’ve been saying for months, ceremonies are important to the ACT queer community, and we’ve made it very clear that we’re prepared to stand and fight on that issue.
Seen this way, the Tasmanian scheme is also a victim of the antagonism of Australia’s national political elites to same-sex marriage and the homophobia which underlies this antagonism
This is, to put it bluntly, crap. The “national political elites” - including the religious right, for gods sake, love Croome’s scheme. That’s why they’re so keen to put in place nationwide, at the expense of local organisations pushing for civil unions. It keeps coming under criticism from within the gay community for what it is: a form of relationship-recognition-lite with minimal community support (except arguably in Tasmania, though it’s hard to know because Croome holds so much personal sway in that state) that set back the battle for broader relationship recognition (including, ironically, gay marriage) years and years.
As I’ve already noted, ceremonies in Tasmania are just as “symbolically significant” as those proposed in the ACT…The Tasmanian registry is at least of equal value to the ACT proposal and is rightfully called a civil union scheme.
It’s a point Croome can’t escape, as much as he tries to meander around it: the Tasmanian scheme provides nothing in the way of symbolically recognising gay relationships. It gives us basic rights, yes, but it reduces our committed relationships to the status of a mere contract. This is not equality. This is institutionalised second-class citizenship. I also wish they’d stop lying and calling it a civil union scheme: it’s not. It’s a registry. The term “union” does not appear in the legislation. You fill in a form at a government office, you get a few extra rights. That’s equivalent to registering a business. What it is not equivalent to is getting a civil union.
The freedom of choice Tasmanians have when it comes to how they enter a recognised relationship is consistent with the fact they are free to choose who they enter such a relationship with. There are no restrictions (apart from age and Tasmanian residency) on who you can nominate as the most significant person in your life.
Except there’s not a choice to have a relationship that’s symbolically recognised at law, which is what the community here has repeatedly demanded and fought for. What if you don’t think your relationship should be legally treated exactly the same (under the same provisions, even) as a parent with an adult disabled child who needs continued care? Straight Tasmanians have that choice, and I bloody well resent Croome trying to take that away from queers across the country because he considers it to be a more “radical” option.
It also only allows partners to create a new legal union.
Exactly. This is precisely what every straight couple in the country does if they choose to get married, and it’s something the queer community here has made clear that they want as well. Second-class citizenship doesn’t become any more palatable because we’re being used as test subjects for someone else’s agenda.
…the Tasmanian registry is, in every respect INCLUDING CEREMONIES a superior form of relationship recognition to that proposed in the ACT.
To be blunt - change hands, Rodney. The Tasmanian registry can’t be superior with regard to ceremonies because it doesn’t have any, and quarantines symbolic recognition as something only warranted by straight relationships. It may give some basic rights, but that registry is stripped of any sign that we’re actually considered equal before the law. That’s why this community has time and time said no to that option, and why both LGBT groups here in the ACT will fight for as long as it takes to prevent its introduction at the expense of our scheme. And it says something about Croome’s gall that he would openly try to have his scheme over the surveyed wishes of our own community.
Quite a few people here have been toning down comments on the Tasmanian scheme for months in the interests of not provoking an inter-community battle in the midst of our campaign. But if Rodney Croome and his mates are going to go so far as to publically campaign against the introduction of real relationship recognition on the mainland, they need to be called out, they need to be fought, and they need to be stopped. Never again should a genuinely progressive LGBT relationship recognition bill be lost to the demands of the religious right because of these bloody registry schemes.
The problem is the incomplete separation of Religion from Government.
What *should* happen is something like this - first the partners must satisfy some set of requirements for partnership. This would include convincing the registrar that there is no coercion involved, for example.
Then they sign a contract of partnership, in front of witnesses, which may or may not have either standard boilerplate conditions or the equivalent of a “pre nup”. From then on, their partnership is recognised in law, should all post-conditions be met (see below).
On top of that, one can add whatever ceremonies are appropriate for the religion of choice - and these may be omitted completely if agreed to in the contract. The partnership contract should state whether it is conditional on such a ceremony being performed within a specified time, and if not, is voided. This may be absolutely crucial to the couple’s emotional wellbeing, or might be an un-necessary encumbrance, it’s up to them.
The role of religious people and marriage celebrants is only to conduct the appropriate ceremonies (if desired) and confirm that they have been conducted in accordance with the partnership contract. They cannot create such a partnership, only testify that the necessary ceremony was performed.
This is approximately how marriage was supposed to work from the 19th century, after various acts of toleration. The legal bits were separated out from the religious ones, which were not always of the standard CofE variety, but could be nonConformist, Jewish, or even (Heaven Forfend!) Catholic. Or omitted entirely, in a “registry office wedding”.
The question then arises, exactly what are the “necessary preconditions” that the registrar must be satisfied of? Are those of the same sex disqualified? How about those with close blood relationships (Father-daughter, for example)? Is it necessary that the partnership be a pair? Is it necessary that they be mutually fertile, or not suffering from venereal disease? I think not.
Those conditions, in general, should be left to the Marriage Celebrant. If the partnership contract says “to be validated by a marriage in accordance with the rites of the Church of Crom, Scientist, as in attachment B”, then their preconditions should be used. They may insist on the partners being a heterosexual pair, not close blood kin, neither with communicable venereal disease, neither already partnered, and both with red hair. Whatever. It would be up to the marriage celebrant to verify these conditions are met.
But until this whole schlemozzle gets fixed, let’s keep it simple. take the Civil Unions Act 2006 and change the 6 to an 8. That’s it.
Personal attacks against proponents of one relationship recognition system over another are pointless. In the context of staunch Federal government policy for “a nationally consistent state-based scheme”, a comparison of systems and, ultimately, a choice of one, is inevitable. Let the debate be had, sans the cruelty jibes (like the dig that a Tassie Deed of Relationship reduces committed relationships “to the status of a mere contract”; this was the system chosen by the people of Tasmania, so be respectful to those who have had their relationships formalised thus and don’t denigrate them).
Personal attacks at this point are quite appropriate. Rodney Croome is the main evangelist for the Tasmanian scheme, and in light of his openly having called for it to be introduced in the ACT at the expense of our own bill and over the wishes of our own gay community, we’ve got every reason to be pissed at him.
The federal government is not after a national scheme for the purposes of consistency. They’re after a national relationship registry to kill any movement towards civil unions: we know this in Canberra, the ACT government knows it, and the Tasmanians should know it. There’s not even the faintest suggestion of a “comparison” - it’s Rudd’s way of pre-empting any further efforts towards civil unions.
It isn’t a “cruelty jibe” that the Tasmanian system reduces committed relationships to the status of a mere contract - it’s outright fact - and I’m fed up with misinformation on the part of a few evangelical proponents of it.
You might notice that nowhere here have I said that the Tasmanians shouldn’t have a registry system if that’s what they want, although I am irritated that it comes at such a political cost to those of us pushing for civil unions on the mainland. What I vehemently object to is the people behind that scheme trying to force it on us at the expense of our more progressive bill that’s before parliament.
Hi Rebecca, I’ve just read your posts on my site and yours, and I’m astounded by your unfairness. Few people outside the ACT have done more to defend the ACT scheme from attacks than I have. I have written, spoken out, and marched for it. Also, few people have done more than me to advocate for same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the Tasmanian scheme has been vilified by people like you, and I’ve stood by in the name of community solidarity. Don’t you think that after several years of having Tasmanian law and the relationships it recognises nastily diminished, it’s about time they got the defence they deserve? That defence has been respectful and fair, which is more than I can say for what you write.
PS: I’ve just noticed in the heading you call yourself a feminist. I thought feminists believed in “choice”, which is the principle behind the Tas scheme.
PPS: I also just noticed your statement that I’ve called for the Tas scheme to be introduced in the ACT. This is wrong. Go back to what I’ve written, and you’ll see I strongly support the ACT having whichever scheme it wants. Stop demonising me to attract attention to your cause. It does that cause nothing but harm.
Thank you for taking the time to respond - I appreciate that much.
I recognise that you’ve publicly defended the ACT scheme in the past, but you’ve been taking snide potshots at it on your blog for ages. It’s not the first time I’ve been pretty pissed off at something you’ve posted on our scheme.
The Tasmanian scheme gets vilified for a reason: it falls short as far as the ACT community is concerned, and so we’ve had to fight tooth and nail to stop it being forced on us. It’s a bit hard to run that campaign if any time we elucidate *why* we feel the Tasmanian scheme doesn’t cut it we get a handful of interstate activists screaming foul about us badmouthing it. There’s been a general stance of trying not to offend its proponents so far, but if you - as you just did - come out and basically call for it to be forced on us - you shouldn’t be surprised when people here get pissed and call you on it.
Your scheme is already law. It doesn’t need “defence” - especially when that defence comes at the political risk of losing our scheme. You’re not unaware of the political climate this comes in. Comments like these from a gay activist with your profile are the last thing we need at the moment.
Look, on just about anything *else* you’re a fantastic activist, and on most other things I’d be cheering you on, but I’m fed up with having proponents of the Tasmanian scheme getting in the way of the campaign here. We’re not campaigning for the repeal of your scheme; quit campaigning against (or at least standing in the damned way of) the introduction of ours.
Rebecca, You’ve got it all the wrong way around. Proponents of the ACT Bill have been unfairly attacking the Tasmanian scheme from the day the former was announced. We Tasmanians have been exceptionally reasonable about this, calling for co-operation instead of denigration, and defending the ACT scheme even as ours was unfairly diminished by the very people we were supporting.
Even now, as I talk up the Tassie scheme I am accused of “forcing it on the ACT”, which is the opposite of the truth. I still support you having any scheme you wish.
You want us to silently stand by while we are denigrated for the sake of your Bill. But at the same time you make the denigration even worse by using words like “cancer”. You can’t have it both ways. If you want respect from others you have to show it to others.
Your comment about the possibility of losing your scheme because of us is revealing. I think what’s really happening here is that we’re being blamed for the homophobia of the Federal Government and the religious right, or at least having anger at them transfered to us because we’re an easier target. It’s not our fault that they have watered down the Tas scheme. It’s not our fault that they are foisting that watered-down version on you. Where we are at fault is when we fail to stand up for what we believe in, in the same way you claim the right to do.
As for the future of your scheme, what we say will make no difference. That lies in the hands of Kevin Rudd and Jon Stanhope.
There’s two issues here that I’m addressing:
Firstly, while I strongly support the right of Tasmanians to determine their own system, it’s I think it’s pretty clear that we’re in this bind because of the existence of the Tasmanian registry scheme. I can’t think of another example worldwide where there’s such pressure on governments thinking about introducing civil unions to water it down to a scheme as in Victoria and the ACT.
I also think those behind the Tasmanian scheme need to take some of the blame for it being watered down even further, as in Victoria. This is because I think it was pretty foreseeable that it was going to be watered down and latched onto. So that much is frustrating - but that said, when it comes down to it, it’s the choice of the Tasmanian community, and now that the ACT community has been dumped in this mess, we need to find a way out of it.
It’s for that reason that criticism of the role those associated with the Tasmanian scheme in this campaign has been muted so far. As much as we’ve been (though I grant you it was certainly not intentional) dumped in the shit by the Tasmanian scheme, criticism of it from our end has been pretty light, and focusing on cooperation where possible. It’s not in anyone’s interest to have an angry split in the gay rights lobby if we can avoid it.
However, there’s been tensions all along precisely because the proponents of the Tasmanian scheme are so frustratingly defensive: every time we attempt to illustrate why we feel that it doesn’t satisfy our needs, so as to make our case against federal intervention, a few folks from Tasmania scream that we’re bashing the Tasmanian scheme (the “unfairly attacking from day one” as you call it). We’re being put in an untenable position, and there’s no reason for it - the Tasmanian scheme is settled law, while we’re the ones who are still having to fight tooth and nail.
And I’ve appreciated that, up until recently, you have professed support - at least in the press - for us having any scheme that we wish, even though you’ve made numerous backhanded comments about it on your blog.
The problem is that - if your blog post of April 2 is anything to go by - you consider that to be “a great mistake”. You flat-out said in that post that you could no longer defend the ACT scheme, and launched an extended attack on it - which I responded to in this post. We’re already having to fight the federal government and the Australian Christian Lobby, and frankly, two powerful enemies is enough. The last thing we need at this crucial hour is the most famous gay rights activist in the country publicly throwing his weight behind the imposition of the Tasmanian scheme elsewhere (which, in this climate, means the ACT).
Ultimately, the Tasmanian scheme is settled law. You and the Tasmanian community won that battle. Now, we’re trying to win ours. We’re not insulting the honour of the Tasmanian scheme by illustrating why we prefer our scheme: we’re making our case for our scheme, both to the public at large and to the ACT and federal governments. We’re the ones with something to lose here, not you. Which is why it would be really helpful if those behind the Tasmanian scheme - you, Peter Power, and Wayne Morgan among others - would back off and let us run our campaign.
It’s Tasmania’s fault that you can’t have the scheme you want, not the religious right, not the Federal Government, but the very people who have shown you more support than anyone else in the nation…
I have to keep reminding myself that there are sane and sensible people in Canberra who deserve respect from government, the community and the rest of the country because, by God, you don’t.
I didn’t say that at all.
Our fight is with the federal government and the Australian Christian Lobby - they are, after all, the ones threatening an override if the Civil Partnerships Bill is passed.
I’m merely stating that we wouldn’t be here in the first place if it wasn’t for the Tasmanian scheme. All the same, as I’ve said, the community there has a right as we do to their own scheme, and having done it, we need to find a way to ensure that ours stands too.
Thus, we now find ourselves in the position of having to justify why we should not have a registry forced on us when the community here has come out in favour of civil unions. This would be a much easier task if the likes of you, Peter Power, and Wayne Morgan, were not so damned defensive, as I’ve stated above and you’ve flat-out ignored.
Can you not see why it’s not a good look - at a time when the federal government is desperately trying to justify forcing a registry on the territory - for the most prominent gay rights activist in the country to publicly declare that he’s ceased support for the Civil Partnerships Bill and wants a registry instead?
There is absolutely no reason for getting steamed up every time someone argues the case for the Civil Partnerships Bill - and to keep going on the attack every time that happens, as you’ve been doing, is undermining our campaign. So for fucks sake, knock it off.
You’re the one who keeps missing the point here. Arguing FOR the ACT Civil partnership Bill is great. I’ve been doing it for a lot longer than you. The problem is when people argue AGAINST the Tasmanian scheme in a way which denigrates it. Of course we get defensive when people compare our legal relationships and those of our friends with dog registration. We’d be remiss if we didn’t.
Of course, this isn’t the only reason we argue for the Tasmanian scheme. We also defend it because we believe it has great merit, merit which people on both sides of the ACT debate is ignoring, merit which actually make it more progressive than the proposed ACT scheme. Your government could easily rectify the problems with the ACT scheme and make it the best possible. But people like you are so offended by any criticism, including constructive criticism, that that seems very unlikely.
Finally, as for you being in this situation because of the Tasmanian scheme…you’d be in exactly the same position regardless of whether that scheme existed. Opponents of reform would retreat to some other concocted option. The real problems are the MARRIAGE ACT and the ACT’s weak constitutional position.
The problem is when people argue AGAINST the Tasmanian scheme in a way which denigrates it.
We can’t effectively argue *for* our scheme without pointing out why we consider it better than the alternative that the Commonwealth government is trying to force on us, which happens to be the Tasmanian scheme. It’s not an attack on the honour of that scheme, and it shouldn’t prompt such defensiveness from its authors every damned time we have to make that case.
Of course we get defensive when people compare our legal relationships and those of our friends with dog registration.
It may be hyperbolic language, but it illustrates two crucial objections to the Tasmanian scheme: its lack of an official ceremony, and its merging with non-conjugal relationships. These mean that it loses the symbolic value that would make it equal with that given to straight relationships, and becomes - at least under law - a mere registration, a signing of papers.
Of course, this isn’t the only reason we argue for the Tasmanian scheme. We also defend it because we believe it has great merit, merit which people on both sides of the ACT debate is ignoring, merit which actually make it more progressive than the proposed ACT scheme. Your government could easily rectify the problems with the ACT scheme and make it the best possible.
This is the crux of the problem some of us here have with the actions of the proponents of the Tasmanian scheme and you particularly. The community here, upon being widely consulted, came out extremely strongly in favour of the version that was taken to parliament in 2006, and which forms the vast basis of the current bill.
Many of the things which you view as a plus - such as the conflation of gay relationships with a bunch of non-conjugal ones and the lack of an official ceremony - are things which I and others find extremely offensive, and which are not in that bill for a reason. They’re not left out because the ACT government forgot or because you haven’t been heard: they’re there because the community doesn’t want them. It’s both really disrespectful to the community here and really unhelpful in the context of the current campaign that you try to fight for changes to our bill based on your personal beliefs over the wishes of our LGBT community.
The real problems are the MARRIAGE ACT and the ACT’s weak constitutional position.
The ACT’s weak constitutional position is, of course, the major problem - without it, of course we’d have had the broader bill passed two years ago. However - as much as I know you strongly disagree, I still believe that the Tasmanian scheme has provided a foundation for this. We’re not really seeing the “civil union bad! registry good!” stance by centrist governments under pressure from the right elsewhere in the world, and we haven’t seen anything equivalent to the nightmare scenario of a national registry elsewhere - which as I said at the last rally (and Andrew Barr also made similar comments) - would be awfully hard to overturn, and would set back any fight for civil unions OR gay marriage for a good twenty years.
[i]We can’t effectively argue *for* our scheme without pointing out why we consider it better than the alternative that the Commonwealth government is trying to force on us, which happens to be the Tasmanian scheme.[/i]
There’s no avoiding the simple fact that some of your criticisms of registries — that they reduce relationships “to the status of a contract”, or are akin to “dog registration” (someone else’s hyperbole, yes, but hyperbole you tacitly endorsed by glossing over it), or play into the hands of the Religious Right, or are a political inconvenience for the ACT — are denigration of existing registered relationships and the system under which they are recognised.
Question is, will this effect Federal Government policy or simply prove to be an exercise in friendly fire?
You’re right. They’re what we see as the negatives of the Tasmanian system, and the reason that we would prefer our civil unions scheme. Every time I do an interview, I get asked why we prefer this over the federal government’s preferred option of a registry, and it’s pretty fucking tiring that the same four or five Tasmanian men hit the roof every time someone here states the case for our scheme.
It’s like - how many times do we have to say it? The. Tasmanian. Scheme. Is. Not. Under. Threat.
Of course it affects federal government policy. We have to make our case in the press, with the public, and with the ACT government - and Croome et al are fucking kidding themselves if they expect us to never dare say why we prefer our own scheme lest they once again blow their top.
Que?
You denigrate registered relationships, then get all self-righteous when people “hit the roof” because of that denigration?
A “do as I say, not as I do” attitude won’t win the desired outcome. It certainly won’t affect federal government policy on this issue.
*rolls eyes*
Read my previous comment.
Brendan’s right. You can’t call the Tasmanian scheme “a cancer” and then tell us off for reacting, and then tell us off again for pointing out deficiencies with your scheme. You can’t have it all your own way. If you want the CP Bill to become law start arguing for it as an important measure in its own right. And start taking that message to the nation.
PS: FTR, the Tasmanian scheme was not my idea. It emerged from community consultations held in Tasmania in the late 1990s, and which grew through parliamentary inquiries into law reform in 2003 - before the same-sex marriage ban. We could never have anticipated how the Federal Government and the Australian Christian Lobby would twist it around to dump on you. To say it was an experiment which we could have anticipated would be used against the ACT (in a much watered-down form) is wrong and just plain stupid.
I’m prone to being over-rhetorical at times, yes. I’ve stated more clearly where I stand repeatedly here; that, while I strongly respect the right of the Tasmanian LGBT community to use their scheme, I recognise that the long-term effect of that bill has been that it effectively dumped us in the shit on the mainland, and that we now have to deal with the consequences of that.
My perhaps unwise choice of words doesn’t change my central gripe here: that the very argument as to why we prefer our scheme over the Tasmanian alternative seems to send certain people into a frothing-at-the-mouth rage at us for “denigrating” the Tasmanian scheme, even if that means - as Peter Parker did - actively storming into our campaign here in the ACT and throwing shit at its organisers for daring to state a preference.
You’ve also flatly ignored my response to your last comment on this blog - where you admitted advocating for the ACT to adopt the Tasmanian scheme (or at least major elements of it) - over the strong wishes of the vast majority of the LGBT community here, evidently because of your own ideology - which was more or less the original post of my calling you out to be an asshole in this post.
Rebecca said: “I’m merely stating that we wouldn’t be here in the first place if it wasn’t for the Tasmanian scheme.”
This is absolutely correct, Rebecca. You would most certainly not be in any position to even be discussing same-sex relationship recognition of any kind were it not for the ground-breaking Tasmanian scheme!
This is complete nonsense. The Stanhope government’s commitment to real relationship recognition in the ACT came on the back of sweeping reforms overseas which left even us starting to fall well behind, even in comparison to traditionally conservative countries like Spain. For gods sake, Stanhope even publicly raised the possibility of doing a Gavin Newsom and briefly legalising marriage before it was ditched due to the fact it would be unconstitutional.
Though I’m hardly surprised, considering the breathtaking ego of some of the proponents of the Tasmanian scheme, that they would be taking credit for this bill, despite both having made the task of passing it much harder to begin with and then repeatedly launching into public tantrums every time we state the case for civil unions.
[…] a month ago, I wrote a very angry post in response to a declaration by arguably the country’s most prominent gay activist, Rodney […]
Rebecca, I’m not even from Tasmania so I’m hardly a “proponent of the Tasmanian scheme” as you put it, nor am I lumbered with a “breathtaking ego”.
You, on the other hand, make an awful lot of assumptions, dontcha?
I was merely pointing out that you wouldn’t even be having the debate in the ACT were it not for previously fought and won debates in other parts of Australia - namely, Tasmania.
Sadly, you are too fixated on looking for someone to blame that you can’t see what’s staring you in the face.
I didn’t say that you were from Tasmania. I said that you were a proponent of the Tasmanian scheme, which is evident. Not to be snide and all, but perhaps you should should work on your reading comprehension before throwing stones.
And I’m pointing out that the “you wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Tasmania” argument is bollocks. If it hadn’t been for the invention of the registry model, we’d have civil unions in the ACT already, and quite possibly in Victoria also. I’m not “looking to blame” anyone apart from the handful of high-profile Tasmanian scheme proponents who claim to represent the LGBT community while actively standing in the way of full equality for Australian queers. They’re quite deserving of scorn in their own right, thank you.
As I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, I respect the right of the Tasmanian LGBT community to choose their own scheme. I merely wish that, in turn, a certain group of their community leaders would a) accept that this has put mainland activists fighting for civil unions in a bit of a bind, and b) have the courtesy to pull their damned heads in, stop pressuring mainland governments to adopt registries, and stop throwing tantrums every time mainland activists put the case for civil unions.