Civil Unions

There has been an interesting attempt by some in the media and in politics to characterise the debate about the recognition of same-sex relationships as being a simple example of "Labour pink think"

Besides not quite knowing what "pink think" might be, it seems to me a fairly straight-forward debate. Sexuality is something that is inherent in people. It is a generally stable trait that people don't 'choose' - it is simply a fact of existence.

The legal recognition of relationships should not be dependent on their sexuality. It should be equally available to anyone who has a relationship which they want to protect in law. That is why I support civil unions. It provides another alternative for straight couples, disassociated from the concept of "marriage" which quite a few people I know have problems with due to its baggage. Civil unions also provides an opportunity for same sex couples who are currently denied the protection of legal recognition.

It amazes me that people would think this is anything other than a pretty modest proposal could attract the kind of bigoted attacks that it does.

So, NZ bloggers, what do you think? CU - yes or no?

Jordan

Comments

[Idiot/Savant]

I think bringing "choice" into it is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether gays choose their sexuality or not; what matters is that they are human beings, deserving of equal respect and treatment regardless of who or how they fuck1.

The State should not recognise some partnerships but not others. Equality demands that if some partnerships are recognised, then all must be (or none). If straights want the government to legally recognise their relationships, then they must extend the same privilege to gays.

1 (Do I really need to make the usual disclaimer about consenting adults here? Or will some wingnut conflate liberal attitudes towards adult sexual relations with supporting pedaphiles and bestiality?)

[Brian (Shadowfoot)]

I oppose the Civil Unions Bill. Separate but Equal is not the equality I want.

[Fred]

Idiot, what's wrong with bestiality? Don't be such a reactionary bigot

[Jordan Carter]

Idiot - I am tempted to agree with you, but believe it or not, some people out there do actually believe it is a choice to be gay, and that therefore gay people can access the rights of marriage simply by changing their mind and being straight. It's crap but some people seem to believe it.

Brian - I think marriage would be preferable and that one day it will be opened up. I also think that if the government was proposing to make marriage accessible to same-sex couples it would be hounded out of office - there is no way such a bill would pass. I do not want to see LGBT couples denied substantive equality for the sake of formal equality in this instance - and so I support the Civil Union proposal as a reasonable half way house. It is much better than doing nothing, and marriage just is not achievable.

Jordan

[stef]

or the answer could be to do away with marriage and only have the state recognise civil unions. Political suicide, but ideologically I feel that people should be free to marry, but that the state has no business recognising it.

[Idiot/Savant]

Stef: well, our marriage legislation is now overwhelmingly secular (sure, all ordained ministers of various scheduled groups are by default marriage celebrants, but I don't see that as a serious impingement), and I think it would be a good way forward to ditch the name and simply recognise CUs. But then the state is still "recognising marriage"; it's just changing what it chooses to call it.

(Unlike the Libertarians, I think there are good reasons for the state to recognise relationships - but they're matters of standards and enforcability, rather than morality).

[Ross]

All I can say is this -> http://www.dorkinglabs.com/fim_popup.php?id=47&title=Civil+Unions

[Honest St00]

I also agree with stef - but slightly different reasons.

I think marriage is the domain of religion - I think it was wrong for the state to get involved in such a matter in the first place.

The state can (and I think should) provide an opportunity for two (or more persons) to share their property and this can be called a "civil union". This should be the name of the contract you sign at the register.

Any other name for the partnership - ie marriage, or Hindu, Buddhist, pagan names for a partnership is completely up to the individuals beliefs and any rituals that they believe in.

If your religion or personal beliefs allow you to "marry" a man or a woman (or a pet or you computer), then call yourself married. But in the eyes of the state, all you are doing is sharing you property etc.

[Idiot/Savant]

Honest St00: That's all it is now; it's just that we've kept the name, and some religious wackos still believe it's something to do with them.

[Jordan Carter]

We do need a register, if only to avoid people becoming bigamists. Suppose you could debate that if you wanted to, but I don't see much public enthusiasm for polygamy out there!

[Mark]

Didn't see much public enthusiasm for abolishing the Privy Council either Jordan. But hey, when has the public's viewpoint mattered to Labour so far from an election?

[Jordan Carter]

They're so far separated that it's not even worth comparing them, Mark. I'd remind you that discussion document after discussion document, consultation after consultation, recommended a domestic final court. It was also in the manifesto of the Labour Party at the 2002 general election.

[stef]

What's the matter with bigmay? As long as it's consententing i don't really care what people get up to.

[Greyshade]

My first thoughts on this subject was that the state should provide a standard legal framework to cover all situations where two or more consenting adults lived together and pooled their assets but should be blind to who was or was not doing what to whom. On further reflection I realised that multiple relationships could get hugely complex. Suppose Bob and Carol go swinging with Ted and Alice and decide to make it permanent and then 6 months down the track - both men are still happy with both woman but Carol and Alice are also in love with each other and Bob can't stand Ted. Probably best to stick to couples in the first instance.
Ideally we should have one law for any consenting adult couple who wish to form a "union" (and are not already in one) could do so - and we may as well retain the name "marriage" for that union. To have the law create two separate types of union one of which is unavailable to same-sex couples lacks parsimony and invites de facto inequaiity (will the courts impose the same penalty for bigamy where the original relationship is a civil union as if it were a marriage?). I would still agree that the civil unions bill is better than nothing.

[dave]

in terms of equlity before the law, how will a civil union bill have more equality than the Omnibus bill?
And if it is equality that same sex couples want, why then is there a need for a CU Bill, if the omnibus bill probides that legal equality?

Surely the Omnibus bill is sufficient?

[Jordan Carter]

Civil Union Bill will give a format for the formal recognition of relationships, and create a register of civil unions.

The Relationships (Statutory Recognition) Bill will end discrimination in 100+ statutes.

You need to have both because you don't want to end up with "compulsory marriage" which could be the outcome if you just go too far with one bill. Marriage and CU need to have rights and responsibilities which are distinct from those enjoyed by de facto couples.

If you just had omnibus, either you are saying that all couples - sexuality and relationship status notwithstanding - should have the same rights and responsibilities;

OR

you are saying that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples who don't want to (or cannot) get married should have no other option.

Does that make sense?

[Idiot/Savant]

Dave: it's about status, not just formal legal equality. The Omnibus Bill confers the latter, but not the former.

If you want to say that the state should not be conferring status on gay couples through Civil Unions, then you need a damn good reason why that argument doesn't also apply to traditional heterosexual marriages.

[dave]

Well Jordan, when your flatmate e-mails me the bills, I may have that damn good reason. Like a civil union is not a marriage, for a start.However, if you say that the state should be conferring status on gay couples through civil unions, and equate that to a heterosexual marriage status - and you think that is equality for homosexual couples - you need a damn good reason as to why that status for same sex couples should not be marriage - and so does the Government. Civil unions are not marriages.
I've written a lot more on this on my blog today - go look.

[Jordan Carter]

Dave, you're confused. I didn't write the comment you're talking about; Idiot/Savant did.

And it's Jordan. :-)

[Idiot/Savant]

Dave: yes, we know that the bill doesn't go far enough. But I don't think that's a good reason to oppose it, especially when the result will be denying gays any sort of recognition at all.

(Pragmatism rearing its ugly head again, I'm afraid)

If you want the government to amend the Marriage Act to make it completely gender-blind, then I'll certainly support that. And OTOH, I'm not actually that fussed about the word. If in five or ten years time the government takes the obvious next step - ditching the Marriage Act, offering only CUs, and relegating "marriage" to be that legally meaningless thing you do in a church - I'll support that as well. Either achieves the same result as far as I'm concerned.

[dave]

Jordan, my apologies about the attribution, it was late at night and all. I just read the wrong name- and read it incorrectly as well ;-(.
Idiot, the onmibus bill will still provide recognition - it's just that it will be legal recognition as opposed to social recognition .BTW I dont support a change in the Marriage Act, like the majority of the judges in Quilter, I see that the current discrimination is lawful and justified. Sometimes there are reasons that the equality desired is not socially acceptable which is why it is not politically achievable.

[Idiot/Savant]

Dave: Legal recognition isn't enough.

So, care to explain what those reasons are? I'm sure people would love to hear...

[dave]

OK here goes...

Let me say from the outset that when I said " equality desired" I meant marriage equality.Civil unions are not equality. If all that is desired is civil unions, then you are settling for a counterfeit in terms of equality. I have several papers from the lawyer who took the Quilter case ( which is the same sex marriage case that has lead to these two bills ) and I can email them to anyone interested. This is straight out of Quilter.

The primary reason that the marriage equality desired is not socially acceptable is because the majority of society does not reflect or condone equality: ie marriage equality of all couples.Perhaps this is why it is also not legally acceptable at present. Some of the legal arguments that are based on discrimination refer to marriage, but not necessarily to civil unions - anyway civil unions is a new bill. There is a difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination. I dont think I need to go into that. Also, although all people are equal before the law, that does not mean to say that all couples are equal before the law - or should be either for that matter.. Most people seem to have forgotten that. Relationship law is primarily about couples and there are different laws for different kinds of couples.

No one has a right to marry a person of the same sex. There is no difference of treatment, because all are treated alike, irrespective of sex or sexual orientation.

All persons have a right to marry a person of their choice, save for the restrictions on choice which apply to all.

It has been argued that while in one sense the restriction on choice ( to marry) applies to all, in a practical and real sense the restriction ( of marriage between a male and female) only affects those with a same-sex preference

this difference in impact based on a person’s sexual orientation, which, looked at in isolation of impact, can be analysed as involving no discrimination. It is perfectly understandable that those with a same-sex orientation will see themselves as discriminated against, but in these circumstances should impact prevail over general analysis? If impact should prevail, it must follow that other restrictions on marriage would also have to be seenas discriminatory - eg: like marrying a sister or an already marred person.

That, briefly, is why our mariage laws do not, or will not in the near future, extend to same sex couples. Happy to elaborate further if requested. Anyway civil unions are not about equality, they are about state and social recognition of same sex relationships.

[Idiot/Savant]

You can tell when people are uncomfortable - they get verbose >-)

So, in short, the reason that it's not socially acceptable is that too many people don't like it. Hmmm. And if people said that you weren't allowed to marry a Maori, would you accept that as well?

As for the contention that gays are entirely free to marry - all they have to do is simply choose someone of the opposite sex - that's simply facile bullshit. Surely its an essential part of marriage that you get to marry the person you love? (assuming they consent, of course) And if so, then why the hell should that be restricted by gender?

A general principle underlying the Human Rights Act is that it is acceptable to discriminate on relevant criteria. So I guess the real question is "why is being of the same sex a _relevant_ distinction on which to bar marriage"?

I'm sure your answer will be informative.

[Idiot/Savant]

Dammit! Double post! Can you delete the duplicate?

[dave]

Hey you`re getting a little annoyed…- a bit like Beyer on Eye to Eye - which I ve just blogged about. . You need to read the Quilter decision - I can email it to you.
One reason that being of the same sex is a relevant distinction in law on which to bar marriage is that marriage is understood to be between a man and a woman. Another is that law has to reflect society, not shape it. The Courts can't change the law, but they can reinterpret it. Its pretty hard to reinterpret the Marriage Act, in light of Quilter, even if the Act is gender neutral. That’s why gay marriage has to come from Parliament.
An essential part of marriage is that you get to marry someone you love, however that is not a prerequisite in law. I was discussing law. You are now discussing social implications. They are quite different.

In terms of social acceptance…. If gay marriage were socially acceptable, then it would be politically achievable - as interracial marriage is both socially acceptable and legal. And we will be looking at a Marriage Reform Bill, not a Civil Union bill.

[Conor Roberts]

Some dork set up an online petition see:

http://www.petitiononline.com/civil/petition.html

I hope it does some good, the right wing media from Paul Holmes to stuff.co.nz are happy to use biased opt in polls, so here is one that is helping a liberal piece of progressive legislation! Excellent!

[The Grey Shade]

Dave: I think you'er arguing at cross-purposes to the rest of us. The arguments in your last post just "prove" that the judges in Quilter ruled correctly in law on the basis of current legislation. I don't see anyone disputing that.
What we're talking about is whether Parliament should change the law. There is no question about their right to do so nor any suggestion that this right is subject to "social acceptance". The fact that a direct amendment to the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage is not "politically achievable" simply means it won't happen. That means that the CU bill is the only change we can realistically look forward to. We all hold (and in most cases have expressed) views on whether we would like this to happen but these are just our personal views. If the bill is passed it will, by definition, be politically achievable and will then become the law. Social acceptance can follow at it's own pace.

[Idiot/Savant]

Dave: Well, marriage is commonly understood to be between a man and a woman only because people haven't really thought about it that much. When you look at what marriage actually is - essentially, a voluntary state-recognised partnership which conveys certain rights - then there's nothing in there about the gender of the people involved _at_all_. There is in our present law, but there's nothing in the concept itself.

Now, you can argue that the above analysis "strips marriage of its significance", but the State _has_no_interest_ in the "significance" of marriage or otherwise. It has no interest in how people see it, or in why people do it (or even whether they do it at all). All it should be interested in is providing a neutral legal framework. Gender-blind marriage or CU's do that. Gender-discriminatory marriage does not.

[each]

http://www.neversaygoodbye.com/wwwboard/messages/37948.html clungglisteningkeyboard