In most
developed nations, a civil partnership is common between same-sex relationships.
The US and the UK have pioneered in recognising same-sex marriages, which the
LGBT community applauded. However, before this happened, many LGBT couples have
applied for civil partnerships, and in the UK, they face the dilemma of
choosing between a glorious entitled position of happily-wed, or the
recognition of only a partnership having immense benefits for each other.
In Australia,
civil partnerships provide them rights to cohabitate, parenting and adoption,
and even entitlements in terms of medical emergencies or other forms of
emergency troubles. In the UK, same-sex married couples also enjoy the same benefits, and even more, but the benefits are only available in the United Kingdom.
Australians need to return to their home, and if they married in the UK, they
do not enjoy the benefits of civil partnership in Australia anymore.\
Well, I think
it is really absurd to have an Australian civil partnership and a marriage
title at the same time. The situation is similar to “for love or money”, except
the “money” part is actually the benefits same-sex couples receive in terms of
societal security. Marriage is the best expression of love, and if legally-recognised,
it earns respect.
Given the
perspective, it is an unfair choice. Every couple wants to be recognised as
they marry, and the split of rights in many countries is just one of the many
possible problems LGBT communities face in the future.
