Couples are couples?

As of yesterday, same-sex couples are considered couples by Centrelink, the Australian social security agency. Isn’t that lovely, my friends, that Centrelink has deigned to “recognise” (their word, not mine) same-sex couples who are living in a de facto arrangement in exactly the same way as their heterosexual counterparts?

The Australian Government has introduced wide-ranging reforms that recognise all couples, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of a partner... From 1 July 2009 changes to legislation will mean that customers who are in a same-sex de facto relationship will be recognised as partnered for Centrelink and Family Assistance Office purposes. All customers who are assessed as being a member of a couple will have their rate of payment calculated in the same way. (Source)

The Minister for Human Services, Sen Joe Ludwig, even has the gall to describe Centrelink’s changes as “the next step to equality for the gay and lesbian community begins” (Source). There has been an extensive advertising campaign run since 30 March, when Centrelink’s “couples are couples” campaign was launched. It cost taxpayers $450,000, probably paid for in its entirety by the savings Centrelink is sure to make by this move (Source). Forms have been changed and now everyone is reminded, when asked if they have a partner, that this also includes same-sex couples and in the case of student allowances, asked about everyone they live with, rather than only being asked about people of the opposite sex like they did before the start of the new financial year.

Am I the only who can smell the stench of false magnanimity in all this?

Many reforms have been passed so that same-sex couples are treated in the same way as opposite-sex couples in areas of tax, superannuation, social security and the like, it is true. This is a wonderful gain, I don’t deny it, but there is one major privilege that has been expressly left off the table: marriage. So, ultimately, the government is saying that GLBT Australians are good enough to tax as a couple, good enough to receive couples rates of social security (which are pitiful compared to singles rates), but apparently we are NOT good enough to marry.

Why should we, I say, accept the burden of equality (as the Attorney General puts it) in having reduced pensions and allowances because our relationships are suddenly recognised, when in actuality, they aren’t recognised in any meaningful way at all. Attorney General Robert McLelland has gone on record to say that legislative changes that seek to remove discrimination against same-sex couples are “overdue” but, mere breaths later, he hastens to remind any right-wingers reading that “the government regards marriage as being between a man and a woman and we don't support any measures that seek to mimic that process” (Source). The attorney-general’s department has set up a website, www.ag.gov.au/samesexreform, to explain the reforms but it is eerily silent on marriage.

Don’t be fooled. The Australian Government doesn’t really care for equality or for making the lives of same-sex couples easier. It cares about votes. If this were actually about human rights or equality, then all discrimination would be removed and, however you choose to couch it, whether in financial, religious or political language, the phrase “marriage is understood as between one man and one woman” discriminates against an already vulnerable section of the community.