The original - uncut

I recently had another letter to the editor published in my local newspaper back home, where I voiced some concerns on recently proposed legislation.  I may seem like a quiet person with not much to say, but get me on the right topic and I've got plenty.  This is one of those topics.  

I've sent in a couple of other letters before which were also published, on the topics of prostitution, and legalising "soft" drugs.  I'm basically always writing about politics and law.

Well in reading the version of this most recent letter that was printed in the paper, I found  that it was edited a fair bit.  So here is my original version - uncut!

So our premier, Lara Giddings, has pledged Tasmanian tax-payers’ money to a fight to legalise same-sex marriage in Tasmania.  What this means is redefining the definition of marriage from what it currently and legally is to include same sex couples.

The noticeable fly in the ointment here is that The Australian Marriage Act 1961 clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only.  This is the Australian Federal Law. 

This means that despite our premier’s fight to change this definition in Tasmania, such marriages will still not be recognised according to Australian Federal law, as they will contradict what is written in the Marriage Act, under the Australian Constitution.

As some people may not be aware, in Tasmania there is already a legal provision for same-sex couples, in that they can register their relationship with Births, Deaths, and Marriages and receive a Deed of Relationship certificate.  (I’m sure no one would object to them holding a ceremony and celebration at this time either.)  This document functions much the same as a marriage certificate in proving and allowing rights in areas such as wills, property division, guardianship, health care, statutory compensation schemes, state taxes, fees and licences, and state superannuation and pension schemes.  It even gives them the legal provision to change their name, as does a marriage certificate.

So what rights exactly does Lara Giddings need to fight for here, with money that is much needed elsewhere? 

If she is serious about going all the way, this will lead to an inevitable (and very expensive) High Court battle to essentially separate Tasmania’s marriage laws from this definition under the Australian Constitution. 

Now, I know we like to joke about Tasmania being its own country sometimes, but do we really want to start separating ourselves from the protection of the Constitution? 

If Lara Giddings is successful in such a separation, where will that leave Tasmania?  Probably drifting down Bass Strait without a paddle…