Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Civil union absurdities
I'm in the middle of ploughing through the fine print of the new Civil Union Bill released earlier this week.
One of the (it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic) absurdities that the Bill throws up is the problem of defining husband and wife.
Section 42, which modifies the Family Proceedings Act 1980, contains the following gem:
"husband: one of the parties to a civil union"
"wife: the other party to a civil union"
I wonder who is going to decide which is which?
This is on a par with one of the absurdities of the Care of Children Bill, which proclaimed that a lesbian woman could be declared a father of her partner's child.
We are now officially in Lookinglass Land.
I'm in the middle of ploughing through the fine print of the new Civil Union Bill released earlier this week.
One of the (it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic) absurdities that the Bill throws up is the problem of defining husband and wife.
Section 42, which modifies the Family Proceedings Act 1980, contains the following gem:
"husband: one of the parties to a civil union"
"wife: the other party to a civil union"
I wonder who is going to decide which is which?
This is on a par with one of the absurdities of the Care of Children Bill, which proclaimed that a lesbian woman could be declared a father of her partner's child.
We are now officially in Lookinglass Land.
