Civil Unions

So the moaners are moaning, the supporters are supporting, and according to the media the Civil Union Bill will be back in the House and passed quite soon.

I am not sure I agree with Colin James that this might prove the high-water mark of social liberalism in New Zealand.  This country, perhaps more than any other, has refused to turn its face away from the bright lights of Enlightenment civilization.  We remain, one might claim, the "City on the Hill" for civilized people everywhere. While Kiwis are sometimes suspicious of the motivations driving social change, they rarely actively oppose it in any numbers - and even more rarely try and wind it back.

This is a good thing.  With countries like the United States beginning to reconnect religion and politics, our little secular oasis could quite possibly become a destination of choice for coming generations of intellectual talent from around the world.  It's an intriguing prospect.  Imagine New Zealand as a sort of refuge for talented people in all walks of life -- a place away from the gale of war, of fundamentalism, of hate and of crisis sweeping the rest of the world -- and be very glad we are so far away from everywhere.

I'm confident that Civil Unions will pass into law, and that in a couple of years nobody will remember what on earth the fuss was about.

The challenge facing liberals (who are both left- and right-wing) is to be much better at explaining the moral reasoning behind our positions.  In the absence of strong moral claims about why what we support is right, we leave all the running on "morality" to the conservatives, and that is not ground any of us should be considering giving up.

As Martin Luther King said, "discrimination anywhere is discrimination everywhere" - and we should be able to celebrate soon enough the end of one aspect of legal discrimination against a minority in our country.  Cheers to that.

Comments

[Rich]

Morality is a personal matter - I don't believe that it's any function of government to enforce it.

My concept of a liberal society is one where no activity is banned or hindered by law unless it can be shown to positively harm others. It doesn't matter that that an activity provides no positive benefit, or that one's value system holds it to be immoral - if you can't point to someone suffering physical harm then it should be allowed.

[geniusnz]

"This is a good thing. With countries like the United States beginning to reconnect religion and politics, our little secular oasis could quite possibly become a destination of choice for coming generations of intellectual talent from around the world. It's an intriguing prospect."

Fantastic! lets do it.

By the way does just left mean "just a little to the left" or "only on the left".
Maybe a bit more of the former than the latter?

[PNN]

Jordan,

Before you get too cheery about us being a bastion of secularism compared to the US, are you aware of President Bush's position on civil unions? He's in favour, but against gay marriage. Sounds a lot like...Labour.

Civil unions are still discrimination, just a softer, and, crucially, less politically risky form. And they are unavailable to those in polygamous relationships.

The only proper solution for anyone who wants to see all relationships treated equally before the law is that the state wash its hands of marriage entirely.

PS I've blogrolled you.

[Sean]

Jordan - I doubt real "intellectual talent" will be leaving the US for NZ anytime soon. Having to put up with some fundamentalist christians isn't as bad as having to live in a provincial backwater! Besides, a first class mind does not necessarily make one a first class thinker. One of the surprising privileges of your 'intellectuals' is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputations. Give me Claude Shannon over Jacques Derrida any day...

[Greyshade]

The right haven't stolen the running on "morality". They've stolen the word and we abet them whenever we use the word their way. Of course it's moral to treat people fairly and equally regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle. And immoral to do otherwise except in the twisted mind of an evangelical Jihadi/Crusader. But it's also moral to fight poverty and suffering, to avoid war and to be a good steward of the resources under our ownership, governance or control - we just don't use the word enough then.

[genius]

No need to make us EVEN MORE of a backwater with conservative laws like in particular anti GE or anti-stem cell research or even anti civil union laws (They all go together in the whole list of things that are not government’s responsibility, and that as PNN notes actually includes marriage itself).

[Craig]

I disagree with Colin, who obviously hasn't worked out that there's same-sex
adoption reforms, banning the physical punishment of children etc during the next parliamentary terms.

If the fundies don't like living in a secular pluralist society, why don't they leave this one for Australia and the United
States? No great loss.

Craig

[Jordan]

PNN - I doubt Bush would support Civil Unions in any meaningful sense. He only said what he did to position himself a little away from his base.

Sean - re the backwater, yes, this place is like that. More's the pity. There are only a few places which are otherwise; I am sure I'll end up back in London because of the space it provides to think and not be hamstrung by our irritating parochialism back here. Just don't assume though that the US is always going to be a place of great intellectual excitement. I am not forecasting its imminent demise, but I would note that all empires go through periods of success -- followed by periods of decline.

GeniusNZ - the ambiguity is deliberate.

Greyshade - good points.

[Idiot/Savant]

Craig: I think Colin James' point is more questioning whether Labour will commit to those changes after seeing the reaction to Civil Unions. Which means we will have to force them, through internal and external pressure, backed by the threat of defection to more liberal parties if they don't deliver.

A good way of making this clear would be to target Labour's regressives in the next election. They don't matter to the party's overall success (that's determined by the party vote), and so it makes sense to back more liberal candidates in those electorates if they're available. Starting serious selection shitfights would be better, but I understand that Labour's sitting MPs already have their selections sewn up (unfortunately).

[Jordan]

Labour's sitting MPs were all reselected a long time ago. Nominations closed for most seats months ago. Uncontested nominations mean no selection battles, and to fight one in any case you need to be signing members up two years ahead, not when you think it's a good idea. :)

[Idiot/Savant]

We'll just have to hold that grudge for 2008 then...

[span(ner in the works)]

or encourage Labour Left to take it out on Labour Right by sending a clear message in the List selection process - they won't lose their seats, but they'll get the idea it's not good enough...