Thankfully human hands have finger nails and other hard stuff embedded in them.
After all the blood, the damage itself is pretty lame. Perhaps a stitch was technically needed, but I doubt it.
And I finished cooking dinner. Beef curry yumminess. With a weird metallic hint of... something...
Gay and de facto couples will be able to register their relationships with a government registry under legislation designed to provide easier access to entitlements.Attorney-General Rob Hulls said legislation tabled in Parliament yesterday would allow the couples to record their relationship with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
Mr Hulls said the register is not gay marriage or a civil union, but would improve access to entitlements, such as superannuation, without de facto and same-sex couples having to prove repeatedly that they are in a committed relationship.
The bill won't be debated (in Victorian parliament) until next year and there are no guarantees it will be passed. The article is full of choice quotes from "what is the point" to "slippery slope".
I'm confused by the constant differentiation of "de facto" verses "same-sex" couple. De facto means "legally recognised relationship of a couple living together in Australian law" [Wikipedia]. I suppose they're avoiding the general idea that "de facto" = "common law marriage". Mustn't use or even infer the M word.
While I approve of the idea behind the register (for all de facto relationships), it's hard to see the difference between a de facto register and a civil marriage ceremony, except "this is a register of people in relationships who are committed enough to give each other their stuff if they die, but not committed enough to say it's forever". I suppose it's cheaper than a Will. And it only exists because some de facto's aren't allowed to say it's forever.
Perhaps the new register could serve a similar practical purpose to the current "notice of intent to marry", only without a timetable attached? "We intend to marry, just as soon as we want to, or as soon as the government lets us."
Meanwhile, the ACT is trying for a third time to introduce civil unions for same-sex couples [The Age], but the new Attorney General isn't promising anything:
"I haven't seen the text of what he's proposing but I'll certainly be putting to him it's in everyone's interests that there's a nationally-consistent standard," Mr McClelland told ABC radio."I think in this area it's unseemly for there to be tourism based on what state or territory has more lenient or differing registration or ceremonial processes."
Mr McClelland said the government would sit down with other state and territories to try to thrash out a "nationally-consistent method of registration".
Update: Rudd refuses to overrule ACT on gay partnership bill [The Age]:
SAME-SEX Australian couples may be able to have their relationship formally recognised as early as next year, after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would not overrule laws permitting civil unions.[...]
Mr Rudd said yesterday that he would not override ACT legislation allowing for civil unions because it was a matter for states and territories.
[...]
As it stands, the ACT's civil partnerships bill does not require couples to live in the Territory to have a civil union.