status of marriage, andthe RDP is seen a true alternative for those who are choosing not to marry, there may be reasons for having significantdifferences between the RDP and marriage. The RDP might, for example, be seen as an institution that only those withoutchildren are eligible for, with automatic conversion to legal marriage if the registered parties should at some future time residewith a child of whom either partner is a parent. The RDP partners might be offered a process (and educational materials) toallow them to more easily shape some of the legal elements of their relationship, such as opting out of marital property lawsby marking a box on a registration form.(21) However, if RDP legislation is enacted instead of (or before) the full recognitionof same sex partners gaining the right to marry, there should be a presumption of equal treatment with marriage. Arguablythe Supreme Court decision in M v H places an onus on any government that would seek to deny rights to same sexpartners who enter an RDP to justify this form of inequality. Further, once rights are conferred, the state will understandablybe reluctant to confer rights without obligations of consequences, for example in regard to welfare (in)eligibility and taxstatus. A number of European jurisdictions with RDP's limit rights and responsibilities in regard to children for partners in this typeof relationship, and there would no doubt be some political support in Canada for some restrictions, for example in regard toadoption. However, there are strong arguments that differences in treatment of same sex couples in regard to children couldnot be constitutionally justified. The weight of research clearly indicates that same sex partners and homosexuals are as goodparents as heterosexuals.(22)In some jurisdictions, the RDP is limited to "conjugal" or "marriage-like" relationships, or even to same sex relationships.Although there are some definitional issues about terms like...
