home polity my creed contact info books links sitemap
related articles
print email save save as pdf

Lien of OZ
Artificial Reproduction
Bible Study
Family issues
One World Government
Church Order
Sunday School
Free Will
December 25
Church & State
Body Mods

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Same-Sex: Same Entitlements

National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits.

"Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally, and when unequals are treated equally." Aristotle,

Nicomachean Ethics, 350 B.C.

by Lien of Oz

Introductory Comments.

In drafting this HREOC discussion paper a number of assumptions appear to dominate; the main one being the acceptance and the recognition of, same-sex partnering [or couples], seemingly at a level calling for this National inquiry to determine their needs and entitlements.

To the best of my knowledge Tasmania is the only State in Australia where formal same-sex couple recognition / registration has been adopted.

Upon what basis should lifestyle ever become the basis for civil rights evaluation or legislation? For ~ 98% of Australia’s population* no one ever defines their being, purpose or character of life, by their sexual behaviour. People within the homosexual community adhering to intimate same-sex lifestyle, still enjoy the same protections under the law as everyone else in society. As a society we do not extend special rights to smokers, the drug addicted or alcoholics, on the contrary, every effort is made to dissuade people from pursuing such practices. However, if one is born a native of Papua or inherits a genetic disease like haemophilia, these are immutable features but claiming homosexual orientation is socially determined. ‘Being gay’, writes activist Dennis Altman,3 ‘is a choice!’

* Valid Australian homosexual statistics have now resulted from the 2001 census (following encouragement from homosexual press) 1 showing no more than 2-3% of the population are homosexually inclined.

Australian sexuality statistics have further been qualified by a survey of some 20,000 participants conducted by the La-Trobe University.2 This documents 97.4 % heterosexual and 1.6% homosexual and 0.9% bi-sexual. Notwithstanding the almost 98% heterosexual identity the LaTrobe study suggested that 8.6% men and 15.1% women experience some levels of same-sex attraction.

One is tempted to ask what efforts are being made to provide for the normalisation or approved relationships, for the bi-sexual individuals? Or are they to remain under some form of exclusion or discrimination?

In the HREOC discussion document, the absence of clear definitions the clarity of understanding is restricted when the terms "sexual preference" [a choice] & [the ill defined] "sexual orientation" are used interchangeably.

In consideration of marriage and the natural family, extreme levels of preference and discrimination are exemplified. Particularly when a man and a woman each declare one to the other the exclusiveness of their choice of each other [excluding all others] and vowing monogamous commitment unto the ends of life. Sadly this exclusivity and commitment is being eroded in contemporary society and community stability suffers.

Moreover, the HREOC discussion paper does not provide any definition of what, or how a same-sex relationship is to be constituted or authorised.

  • What determines the recognition of a same-sex relationship?

  • How is it defined?

  • How is it constituted?

  • What conditions are attached?

  • How is it to be approved or ordered?

  • What determines its initiation or permanence or termination?

  • Under what kind of regulations or legislation are same- sex relationships to be approved/ ordered?

  • Where do we find the demand for normalisation of same-sex relationship/s?

  • Upon what quantitative incentive or basis should this substantial HREOC inquiry be pursued?

Same-Sex Partnering–Numbers

ABS figures for homosexual coupling in Australia identify but 0.2% of total population– 39,188 persons in 19,594 partnerships—eg. Victoria 4889.

These statistics indicate that less than 0.5% of all couples agree to some form of homosexual union. Homosexuals living in a 'couple relationship' represent just 0.26% of all persons aged 15 years and over. * National total of same-sex couples with children  = 2,187

Using the same 2001 ABS numbers Catherine Caruana 4 notes that there are of the order 5 same-sex. couples for every 1000 recorded live-in [marriage or other] unions i.e. 0.5%. These coupling statistics are far short of the 1 in 5 claim proposed in the Alternative law Journal by Dr. Sarantakos 5.

At least Catherine Caruana’s estimate is in the same sphere as figures reported for the Scandinavian Countries Sweden 0.55% and Norway 0.65% .6

In the UK the Office for National Statistics lists 78,522 people who acknowledge living as same-sex couples. Yet this proves to be way smaller at 1 in 5000 than Australian predictions namely, 5 in 1000. The UK homosexual advocacy group-Stonewall, believe this figure to be a gross under estimate. Yet they fail to produce sensible statistics to substantiate this view. In a recent article John Carval for his Guardian column 4 Feb 2004 quotes homosexual population figures [commercially obtained] raging between different regions from 2% to 12%

Formal US census figures 7 for 2000 identify a National average 0.42% same sex couples from the total couple household population.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) 8 reputedly use the same, year 2000, US Census Bureau figures and give couple populations from one State to another ranging over 0.4 to 0.8%. Yet when averaged over 25 States they too give a figure of < 0.5%. 16% of the US same-sex couples are reported to be living in California concentrated in San Francisco.

Another document9 lists the US National average 0.56%

The evidence to date is that most homosexuals themselves do NOT really want civil unions or any kind of relationship register... These are but political tools to normalise homosexuality.

* Tasmania introduced a ‘relationships register’ in January 2004 - ONLY 43 partnerships were registered in the first year and ONLY 15 in the second year. There are now 63 registered. 10

* Sydney City Council introduced a relationships register in January 2005 - so far ONLY 22 couples have registered! 11

* New Zealand introduced a ‘civil union’ scheme twelve months ago. ONLY 156 male and 170 female same-sex couples have registered. The 2001 NZ census showed there were 5070 same-sex couples - only 6% of those couples have formalised their relationship with a ‘civil union’. 12

Absence of any Push for Same-sex Partnering.

In Denmark where domestic partnerships has had legal recognition since 1989 only 3% of the homosexual community have ever taken up the offer and almost 30% have already ‘divorced’. This Danish experience does not boost confidence in formal same-sex relating.

In Canada where ‘same-sex’ marriage has recently received legal sanction only 479 of this country’s 34,200 self identified homosexual couples have applied for ‘marriage’ licenses.

In the homosexual friendly Netherlands only 1 in 7 couples living in some form of same-sex union have (since 1997) ever sought to formalise their relationship. This equals just over 1 %

of the total number of cohabiting couples in the Netherlands. In Denmark after over 9 years only 2,372 same-sex couples have registered their union. While in Norway and Sweden respectively, only 674 and 749 have registered their same-sex relationship, after just over 4 years.13

These kinds of data indicate that even in ‘gay friendly’ societies the homosexual community shows little inclination for committed (marital) union. What then is their objective in pushing for marriage equivalence? And the continuing demand for ‘rights’ equivalent to persons in marital union.

In San Francisco despite the recent clamour for the ‘renegade’ issue of ‘marriage’ licences fewer than 4% of that city’s gay partners have sought them out.14 [3,700 of the 100,532 couples State-wide who identified themselves as same-sex partners in the 2000 census.]

Activist homosexual groups are quick to argue that given the right levels of tolerant community acceptance and non-discrimination, they would be keen to register formal couple unions. Yet the strange irony is that no such rush for union has been demonstrated even in countries where same-sex marriage or domestic union are legal entities. In a world wide ‘muster’ the (Gay activist) Human Rights Campaign (HRC)15 found just under 30,000 same-sex unions.

Stability of Relationships:

In an Australian Survey of 2,585 homosexually active men sponsored by Dept Health.16 [J. of Sex Research Vol. 34, No. 4, 1997] Only 2.7% reported just one lifetime sexual partner.

More recent info. In MASH and SMASH reports only ask about the past 6 months.

Why then the clamour for domestic same-sex relationship recognition??

The modal range of lifetime sexual partners for men over 50 is between 101-500 partners.

 Observations of these kind are confirmed by the periodic SMASH, MMASH, MGCPS [Melb. Gay Community Periodic Survey] for Federal and State health departments by the National Centre In HIV Social Research [NCHSR] –University of NSW. Typical relational data are listed in the Table.

Number of Lifetime Partners

Claiming Bisexual


Partners over 6 months

Bisexual orientation








20 or less
























Over 1000



Over 50



# In the Sydney periodic survey up until 1998 regular partner carried the added qualification–regular and my partner has casual partners– this qualification no longer appears in the Melbourne survey. Regular may or may not imply monogamous. Relationships beyond 6 months are no longer recorded as 75% identify with more than one partner.


In homosexual friendly Netherlands 17 same-sex marriages rarely last more than 18 months.

The kinds of data reported above confirms the kind of information that has remained much the same pre-AIDS and for the last 20 plus years where less than 1 in 4 from the homosexual community regard any form of fidelity as appropriate to their lifestyle. For instance McWhirter and Matterson 18 in 1984 assessed 156 homosexual couple relationships lasting over 1-37 years and only 7 reported anything akin to exclusive fidelity for 5 years. Saghir and Robins 19 had earlier determined that homosexual unions rarely lasted more than 3 years.

These kinds of statistics suggest that regardless of what laws or institutions are changed homosexual unions compared against heterosexual marriage, are innately short lived. In the homosexual community as has been noted ‘monogamy’ does not imply sexual exclusivity. Promiscuity remains the norm; even while a ‘coupled’ relationship may superficially be retained.

High profile advocates for the homosexual lifestyle such as Michelangelo Signorile 20,21 or Paula Ettelbrick 22 repeatedly defy the idea that monogamy should in any way be embraced.

These activists and their contemporaries, make no apology that behind their push for gay marriage lays a political agenda which aims to radically change the institution of marriage itself.

Recent headlines in an edition of Washington Blade 23 reads – ‘City gays skip long- term relationships’. This article was reporting on a study undertaken by the Chicago University Sociologist Edward Laumann who concluded that– "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

In studying Western sexuality Pollak 24 could not find very many homosexual relationships lasting longer than two years; the great majority reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.

Ryan Lee 25 commenting on author Barry Adam, in yet another Washington Blade editorial, affirmed that– "gay culture allows men to explore different forms of relationship beside the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."

Lesbian relationships 26according to the homosexual magazine-Washington Blade 4 Dec. 1998 are even more colourful. This journal reports that women who have sex with other women (WSW) often have twice as many additional male partners as female. This kind of statistic surpasses any comparable (flirting) heterosexual woman. This kind of information is further confirmed by Katherine Fether et al.27

During 2003/4 a major online Gay/Lesbian Consumer Census, surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. This provided, as it were, an instant image of current western homosexual coupling. Just 15 percent indicating that their relationship had existed for over 12 months.

Comparing this kind of interview with a marriage poll 28 conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows. While this latter poll was taken over10 years ago we have no doubt that marital relationships have in not deteriorated to the levels expressed by the homosexual lifestyle.

Yet the homosexual community contend that normal (man/woman) marital relationships are beset with infidelity and divorce and no longer basically for procreating a family but like homosexuality seeking sexual pleasure. However, while 75% plus fidelity in Western marriage is less than ideal there remains an enormous gulf when compared to homosexual infidelity with almost negligible lifetime commitment.

In the Scandinavian countries 29,30 where same-sex union has been approved for almost 10 years forms male/female cohabitation [married and de facto] are becoming more unstable. Marriage itself is dying. However, homosexual unions male to male, are even more unstable by some 50% while female to female union exhibits 170% high rates of severance.

Patrick More 31 a radical homosexual author, in his latest ‘tome’–"Beyond Shame" – has been reported in the Los Angeles Times, 26 Jan 2004, that homosexuals should in fact not even try to assimilate into an heterosexual culture nor seek the notion of monogamy; stating that monogamous union is too great a challenge for the homosexually oriented.

"Gay history" quotes More, "is built on sexuality…… Homosexuals should stop trying to assimilate into heterosexual culture's notions of monogamy."

More confirms the truth that people adhering to the homosexual lifestyle still prefer to engage in sexual activities with multitudes of men and women. In this he concurs with Andrew Sullivan 32,33 though writing a book called ‘Virtually Normal’ affirms that "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extra-marital outlets between two men than between a man and a women. …. The truth is, homosexuals are not normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."

While it is now touted as discrimination and gross opposition, to deprive same-sex couples of any equivalence to marital union, there remains no indication that the homosexual community seek in any way to change their present promiscuous lifestyle in favour of marital fidelity.

The last word might well be given over to Amy Lowell 34, an Australian lesbian commenting upon the Prime Minister’s attempts to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman for life:

"When it comes to same-sex marriages [or other union], John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . . [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it. ‘For life’! It’d be like sitting through one of those interminable bloody Indian films but when you get to the end it starts all over again and you can’t leave. Let’s leave marriage and other drudgery to heterosexuals. They’ve had millenniums of practice. They’re good at child-rearing and taking out the rubbish. I never wanted to be like them, even when I was one of them. . . . Surely we can come up with something better: semi-marriage or quarter-marriage, which would narrow the field down to eight or a casual, part-time or temporary marriage. Or even a flexitime marriage".

Our behaviour, as a society, towards homosexual relationships should not be seen as some form of unlawful discrimination but nevertheless a society which warns of the risks and dangers attached to the homosexual lifestyle. Should we continue to normalise any and every form of sexual coupling, we merely start to run down the road of moral relativism toward social chaos.

In 1934 J. D. Unwin 1 [British anthropologist; Sex and Culture 1934, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures]. forecast that no nation or culture can last much longer than one generation once it embraces sexual hedonism. "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."

Same-sex Domestic Violence: Journalists never tire of highlighting instances of husbands abusing their wives in marriage and de facto relationships. Ideological self- censorship apparently inhibits their revelations of same-sex domestic abuses because of their aim to present homosexual unions as not especially distinguishable for other ‘couple’ relationships.

The truth is that homosexual couples exhibit levels of domestic violence 35.36 exceeding that occurring in heterosexual cohabiting unions. For a woman, living with a man in marriage, is close to 10 times less dangerous than having an on-going sexual relationship with another woman.

Lest it is assumed that same-sex domestic violence is just a characteristic of the USA the same situation in Australia is not all that different. This has recently been highlighted by Dawn Cohen 37 in Lesbians on the Lose. Jude Irwin from Sydney University School of Social Work comments–‘In the past women have not reported their partners to the police because they didn’t want to ‘dob in’ a sister…." Lesbian domestic violence has further been outlined in a book edited by Kassa Bird.38

Susan Holt 39 a co-ordinator for the LA Gay and Lesbian Centre noted… ‘domestic violence is a more serious problem for gays than ‘hate crime’. The facts show that gay men and lesbians are more likely to be injured by an intimate partner than a stranger.

Other homosexual activists comment that ‘battering’ has "been kept quiet in the gay community for political reasons. It was dirty laundry that didn’t need to be aired in public."

These few references constitute but a small example of the documentation describing the high level of domestic violence occurring between homosexual couples.

Issues of Discrimination

The initiation by HREOC Australia of this inquiry into issues of same-sex discrimination is perhaps quite unique for, at least for the USA, their Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not track discrimination cases based on sexual orientation. However, where companies have instituted domestic partner benefits in the USA few have taken up the opportunities provided. For instance GM 40 with a huge employment register of 1,330,000 in 2001 only 166 chose to take advantage of the company’s offer.

It is also interesting to note that (in the US) there cannot be found any significant evidence of hostility directed against persons adhering to homosexual identity. Take for example in the USA both HRC and NGLTF figures on employment discrimination show that no more than 1600 cases of employment discrimination from a workforce of 127 million. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) documents over the years 1988-1994 only 20 people who suffered discrimination based upon their sexual orientation. 14 were let go ‘without cause’, three were fired for violating the company's clearly stated rules on homosexual behaviour, and one was demoted.

A Litigation Minefield- Employer/Employee Homosexual Discrimination Issues:

As already noted, in Australia, Tasmania is presently the only State to have legislated for same-sex partner registration (Jan. 2004). In NSW the Sydney City Council, as a corporation, has introduced a same-sex relationships register. (Jan. 2005) Meanwhile the ACT is preparing to address this matter. Nevertheless, all Australian States and Territories under forms of Equal Employment rules for anti-discrimination cover categories mainly in respect of sex#, race [ethnic or national origins], skin colour, age & forms of disability. Some make accommodation for people adhering to an homosexual lifestyle defined as ‘sexual orientation’ yet there is no requirement in law for any person adhering such a lifestyle to reveal their sexual orientation.

# Discrimination on the basis of sex [gender = male/female] is quite distinct from its extension to sexuality based on behaviour.{orientation or preference]

UN Human Rights has yet to confirm ‘sexual orientation’ as a particular (sex) classification though currently often presumed under the blanket category ‘other status’.

As yet there are no universal laws demanding that industry, businesses or corporations, extend to employees with ‘unmarried’ partners, benefits in common with married couples. This arena is fraught with innumerable legal challenges, insurance and tax penalties.

Individual organisations or companies can if they so desire implement their own anti-discrimination rules and employee contractual agreements in regard to homosexual persons. [Individuals attaching to bi-sexual and transgender identification are often overlooked.] Individual companies draft their own affidavits for same-sex couple registration.

Where Corporations / Companies have implemented their own contractual employment policies they necessarily expose themselves to many and varied legal paradoxes and challenges.

In the US the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) has estimated, as at the end of November, 22% of US employers who offer domestic partner benefits. According to the Society for Human Resource Management in 2003, 23% of employers offered benefits to same-sex partners and 31% extended benefits to [de facto] opposite-sex partners.

It is interesting to note that in the US the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as reported in Washington Blade; March 2003, found that registration of same-sex (domestic partner) relationships grew to be prohibitively too expensive to maintain and drastically, they reduced benefits by 50%. Insurance and health care costs became exorbitant.

Civil lawsuits arise where/ when, ever Federal or State legislation does not demand such rules/policies.

Where contractual agreements have been drafted employers have found themselves restricted in their capacity to discipline or sever employment for inappropriate workplace behaviour. Moreover, concepts of privacy and moral discrimination, prevent same-sex relational registration requiring any kind of fidelity or evidence of monogamous relating.

When any company implements sexual diversity recognition other employees are often offended by workplace behaviour patterns and seek redress alleging sexually hostile work environment. Employees celebrating their diversity will in turn seek avenues to sue under the company’s anti-discrimination rules.

If/ where diversity extends to transgender and bi-sexual persons, difficulties inevitably arise when ‘straight’ persons, more particularly women, object to periodic changes in dress and the use of women’s toilets. Companies have been called upon to provide separate facilities.

In seeking to avoid charges of provoking a sexually hostile environment, an employer faces the dilemma of having also to protect those identifying as bi-sexual or transgendered, from discrimination or harassment.

Then there is always the requirement of avoiding issues of discrimination on religious grounds. How does a company management address and respect, an employee whose religious convictions regard homosexuality as immoral? Both Federal and State legislation notionally upholds the right to freedom of religious expression.

What are the challenges and kinds of lawsuits that employer organisations are to face if they do not recognise non-marital relationships when registration ledgers are authorised by the State?

Once, as a community, we do away with the universal (historic) recognition of ‘one man –one woman’ marital union and extend all its benefits (privileges) to any and all kinds, of relationship, the fundamental structural [marriage/family] unit the foundation of disciplined, civilised society, will simply collapse.

The Paradox of discrimination legislation.

An Hypothetical Situation.

A Modern Model Managers Dilemma.

As the CEO of an Auto-parts distributing company I am justly proud of our company’s

achievements and innovative multicultural employment policies. However, every Thursday our sales director (he baffles me) arrives at the office dressed as woman. Nevertheless, I guess the office staff and myself, just have to adjust. For if I confront him he might well accuse me of being discriminatory. On the other hand, what do I do about my design chief, for she is living with our receptionist in an open lesbian relationship? And yes, you guessed it, Joe, the office manager regularly meets, each lunch time, with our maintenance technician; for their own kind of ‘hanky panky’ in the men’s rest room. If I confront them they too, could just remind me that this is their own private time together. They too might also claim that they were being discriminated against.


I must confess that in all our advertising and recruitment strategies we do boast about our progressive concepts of staff diversity and equal opportunity employment. Yesterday however, I learned that my own secretary; a married women with two young children, was having an affair with the company accountant. Well at least I can have him sacked…but why?

Could he too take me to the EOC charging discrimination? Furthermore, how do I now confront my secretary?

And reality……

Where/when does our ever expanding discrimination law ever stop?

For instance– One Californian software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totalling over $1(US) million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. It did not matter that the company did not even know the "woman" was a man. The "victim" sued under California’s "sexual orientation" law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court. To pay for the loss, eight employees were laid off, with the number eventually growing to 20.

"Computer Soft-Wear, 1997 " in The Other Side of Tolerance, p. 12.

Concluding Comments:

These comments, while not directly, addressing the terms of reference of the HREOC–Same-Sex- Same Entitlements inquiry, identify the fact that there is no substantial quantitative demand from the homosexual community to warrant such and extensive investigation. Leading advocates for the homosexual community moreover, repeatedly comment that recognition of marital equivalence is not their goal.

The transient nature of same-sex relating persons is addressed together with a brief comment concerning the insecurity and risks associated with same-sex relationships.

In the absence of wide National and State registration or other formal [legal] recognition there appears to be no valid grounds for pursuing such an extensive investigation. Certainly not in respect of same-sex ‘couples’. Issues of discrimination, harassment or abuse or entitlements must therefore be addressed as individuals, not as ‘couples’.

Where partnerships, however durable, are initiated there are innumerable other legal avenues available to cater for forms of interdependency other than formal registration of domestic or other union.

Should the political community legislate to give same-sex cohabiters benefits, in law, and policy, equivalent to those enjoyed by married couples these could never, be regarded as representative of justice or fairness. For, by giving them the same material/ social rewards, without any expectation of the same levels of public responsibility, will inevitably lead to the total collapse of marriage and family with its accompanying welfare cost penalties and social decay. Such features are exhibited in the Scandinavian countries where liberal laws favouring same-sex relationships are authorised. Recent statistics from the UK, concerning unwed pregnancy rates suggest the same kind of social penalties are developing there also.

Societal Risks:

The unique complementary character and social benefits of marriage, between one man and one woman, can never be mimicked, substituted or faked. If/when the marriage relationship is to be appreciated as just one of any number of relationships and "the State" then authorises to accord to each and every (any) registered relationship, the benefits afforded to marriage, significant cost penalties will accumulate and society itself progressively collapse.

The law of unintended consequences, accruing over the last thirty years, consequent upon the introduction of no-fault divorce, has clearly been shown to be socially destructive. Those who now seek to introduce further risky relational experimentation should also bear the burden of proof and to put forward evidences of the advantages that will accrue to society; exceeding those created by the exclusivity of stable marriage and family.



  1. Melbourne homosexual newspaper (MCV 3Aug. 2001) carried an articles encouraging ALL 'same sex couples' to "spend the night together on Tuesday to make sure the new figure is more accurate’.
  2. Sex in Australia– LaTrobe University; Summary Findings of the Australian Study on health and relationships–CSAHS–NCHSR 2—3 see also Aust. & NZ Jrl. Of Public Health, 2003; April.
  3. Dennis Altman- AIDS and the New Puritanism; Pluto Press NY, pp. 98 & 188.
  4. Catherine Caruana; Australian Inst. Family Studies, 2000 No63, Spring/Summer.
  5. Soterios Sarantakos, Options for Legalising Same-sex Relationships in Australia; Alternative Law Report, 1999; V.15
  6. Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," Weekly Standard (February 2, 2004): 26.http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
  7. 16-page census report; Unmarried-Partner Households by Sex of Partners" (U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary Philemon 1). Footnote two "Data on unmarried partners from the 1990 census (which were based on data from the sample form) are not comparable with data from Census 2000 because of changes in the editing procedures." See also Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003, February). Married-couple and unmarried-partner households: 2000. United States Census..Bureau. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
  8. J.Cianciotto and S. Cahill Education policy: Issues Affecting Lesbian gay Bi-sexual and transgender Youth; NGLTF Policy Inst.; cited http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/EducationPolicy.pdf
  9. Same-Sex Partners a Fraction of State Households, Candia Dames; Capital News Service; Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2002  
  10. Tassie leads with relationship register, Mercury, 3 April 2006. At <http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18689762%255E3462,00.html>
  11. Moore Gay Couples Wanted   SSO, 16 March, 2006. At <http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5179
  12. Few make use of civil union, Assist News, 26 March 2006.  At <http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06030148.htm13.
  13. cited by S. Kurtz, The End of marriage in Scandinavia, Weekly Standard, 2004, 2 Feb.,V.009,issue20www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3660&R=9D96D
  14. Tracy Kaplan & Mary Anne Ostrom; Many couples of same-sex in no rush for altar; Mercury News ,The San Francisco Chronicle, 21 March 2004, gave an estimate of 3955 under the heading- Battle over same-sex Marriage.
  15. Human Rights Campaign, Number of Same-sex Couples Married see http://hrc.org/template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENDID=17420
  16. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
  17.         Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
  18. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop; 1984; (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall,), pp. 252, 3.
  19. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality; 1973; (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225;
  20. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
  21. Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30
  22. Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?", in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405. Paula Ettelbrick, amongst other post she holds, is Executive Director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human rights Commission (IGLHRC)
  23. Quoted by Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade 2004, February 27, p 12.
  24. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.
  25. Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade,2003; August 22 ; 18.
  26. Lesbian relationships; Washington Blade 4 Dec. 1998
  27. Katherine Fether et al. behaviour of women who have sex with women, STD Journal, 2000, 76;pp.347-49
  28. PR Newswire (August 4, 1994).Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring"
  29. Stanley Kurtz ; Deathblow to Marriage, 2004 ,Feb.5 see www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
  30. also New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General, Culture & Cosmos: 2004, Vol 1, No. 25, 27 Jan.
  31. Patrick Moore, Beyond Shame: Reclaiming The Abandoned History Of Radical Gay Sexuality reviewed Los Angeles Times, 2004, Jan. 26.
  32. Andrew Sullivan and Joseph Landau– Same-sex Marriage: Pro and Con. Also http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828
  33. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1996). Sullivan recently attracted notoriety for his advocacy of risky practices.
  34. Amy Lowell, "Do lesbians need marriage?," MCV, 4 June 2004, p. 6.
  35. Susan C. Turrell, "A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," Journal of Family Violence 13(2000): 281-293; Stephen S. Owen and Tod W. Burke, "An Exploration of the Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Same-Sex Relationships," Psychological Reports 95 (2004): 129-132; Paul Cameron, "Domestic Violence Among Homosexual Partners," Psychological Reports 93 [2003]: 410-416.
  36. Rennison, C. M. (2001) Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, NCJ 187635. (www.ncjrs.org)
  37. Dawn Cohen, Last taboo, lesbians on the Lose, Issue 26 ; 2004, June.
  38. Kassa Bird, Making Waves–Attending to Lesbian Relationship Violence.
  39. Susan Holt, Ending the Cycle of Domestic Violence; Gay and Lesbian Times; 26 Sept. 1996,p.39.
  40. Cited in Why Promote Healthy Marriages?, Corporate resource Council pamphlet, see www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers.html