If the birth is attended by a Person of Substance, the paperwork all goes through without a hitch.

That was always the idea behind Royal births taking place in a room full of titled nobility. The birth had to be witnessed as definitely issuing from the Queen’s loins, otherwise who knew what rudely healthy peasant changeling might be foisted upon the throne?

After all, we did the same with registering our offspring years ago – nobody confuses the act of registering a birth with a christening or other naming ritual – they’re two entirely separate aspects of welcoming a new life into the family.

Hey, that’s an interesting comparison (and one I hadn’t seen drawn before). The ritual of a birth being attended by a registered doctor or midwife does have some impact on the birth registration. If the birth is attended by a Person of Substance, the paperwork all goes through without a hitch.

If a woman has an unattended homebirth, however, she does have to jump through some hoops, including a statutory declaration (“Yes, Government, I really did see this baby come out of my vagina!”) and a certificate from a doctor.

After all, we did the same with registering our offspring years ago – nobody confuses the act of registering a birth with a christening or other naming ritual – they’re two entirely separate aspects of welcoming a new life into the family. Everybody would become accustomed to a similar approach to formally recognising pair-bonds in quite short order: the bureaucratic requirements of registering a pair-bond kept totally separate from community ritual traditions of blessing and celebrating.

The traditionalists won’t like it though.

Thanks for making the font bigger in the comments field. Muchus betterus! :)

In respect of contacting more sympathetic Coalition Senators from your state, check out the list of Liberal Senators who voted for (with their consciences) the 2006 – RU486 Bill, at Andrew Bartlett’s site.
[link]

The current bill is likely to get broad bipartisan support precisely because it is so limited. Without broad bipartisan support (making the opposition of Fielding and other socially conservative Senators irrelevant) then no reforms at all will be passed.

With respect to ceremonies, I believe there’s nothing stopping same-sex couples going to a registered celebrant for a commitment ceremony in most if not all Australian states. Commitment ceremonies do not result in any altered legal status, but at least registered celebrants offer experience in conducting ceremonial events and can help make for a dignified and meaningful occasion of bearing witness to a loving partnership in front of the nearest and dearest.

Here’s the blurb from an online register of celebrants:

Only those Celebrants who are Commonwealth-authorised Marriage Celebrants (CMC) are legally permitted to celebrate marriages within Australia. Commonwealth-authorised Marriage Celebrants are appointed by the Attorney-General of Australia. Commonwealth-authorised Marriage Celebrants are indicated by the letters ‘CMC’ following their name in the listings.

Authorised CMCs and General Civil Celebrants may perform Same-sex Commitments, Renewal of Vows, Namings, Funerals and a wide variety of other ceremonies.

General Celebrants are NOT Commonwealth-authorised and so, ARE NOT legally permitted to celebrate marriages.

Sadly, both the ALP and Coalition are equally as bad as each other in holding onto this core bigotry.

Lauredhels last blog post..“Save Second Base!”: The Reaction responds