Beyond those 3 that are attracting a whole lot of
attention, there are a number of other amendments as well, some of which are
worth commenting on
Religious freak
outs. We have a whole load of amendments that say, basically, the churches
need protecting from the icky icky gay folk. These are pretty much redundant since
the bill already lets religious groups be bigots over and over again including
with that ridiculous quadruple lock. There is no need for these amendments and
their inclusion just adds fuel to the fire that poor religious groups are being
forced by the nasty gay folk.
Chaplains. A
provision to protect chaplains from the icky icky gay folk. I vehemently oppose
this. It’s one thing for private religious bodies to practice their bigotry
(which I strong disapprove of anyway) but that goes beyond the pale when chaplains
provide services for the government and are paid with tax payer money. My tax
money shouldn’t be paying for bigotry against me.
Adultery
&Consummation. These archaic concepts are, at the moment, defined by
penis-in-the-vagina (PIV) sex and are generally inapplicable to same-sex
couples. But, to
be frank and as I have explained before, they’re also pretty ridiculous for
opposite sex couples as well. The amendments would remove all mention of
both of these outdated concepts from the law – I approve wholeheartedly.
Trans provisions:
there are a number here. Firstly one that preserves pension rights for couples
when one partner transitions – an obvious yes and needed.
The current law allows a marriage to be voidable should
one party be trans and not tell the other. The amendment would remove this –
and I heartily agree. Should they wish to end the marriage there are already
tools to end it. I do not think being trans is such a super-special clause that
it needs its own voidable clause, nor do I like pressures of disclosure being
pushed on trans people.
The law as it stands requires a cis person in a marriage
to a trans person to statutorily declare they want the marriage to keep on
after the trans person transitions. This is exceedingly icky and the amendment removing
it is badly needed – this sets a presumption that they will want their marriage
to end, it sets a presumption that cis people automatically need an out from
marriage with a trans person – it sets up an ideal that being married to a
trans person is a terribad fate that people need rescuing from and that most
people would – should – flee from. As I say above, nothing will force you to
remain married, we already have a pathway to ending a marriage without having
to impose this insulting presumption of dissolution and forcing couples to take
steps NOT to be automatically divorced.
There is also an amendment allowing the altering of
marriage certificates to reflect a trans person’s gender and birth certificates
of their children to reflect their parents’ gender. Definitely needed.
In the past, trans people have been forced to annul their
marriages to transition (since same-sex marriage was illegal). There is an
amendment to allow these people to reinstate their marriage and have it listed
as continuous. Definitely something to support – they did not want their
marriage to end and had that forced on them by a bigoted law, time to correct
that.
