65-55

I was very pleased with the results of the Second Reading vote last night, which saw the Civil Union Bill through to its committee stages with a majority of ten.

There's reporting - extensive - in the Dom Post, a few in the Herald (here, here, here and here).

DPF has comments here on the speeches MPs made.

Tim Barnett's excellent speech is here.  A closing quote from it:

Mr Speaker, homosexuality certainly inspires fantasy.  Submitters spoke of a man in the United States wanting to marry his horse (male, I assume).  Of this Bill being the spark for mass explosion of New Zealand's volcanoes.  Of homosexual Arab terrorists roaming the streets of Christchurch promoting this Bill.  Of most gay men dying in their early 40s, giving me kaumatua status in this House. 

Then I read chilling submission CU748, in which a 12 year old describes homosexuals as worthy of death.  Those in this House who reject this Bill need to realise what that rejection is validating, be it blackshirts marching outside or twisted prejudice in the minds of our young.

I am just relieved and pleased the legislation is through.  I was particularly proud of the way it has largely been a cross-factional issue in the Labour caucus to get this legislation through, as demonstrated (for example) by George Hawkins' wonderful speech during the debate.

I also really appreciated that some MPs from centre-right parties had the courage of their convictions to vote for the legislation.  As DPF said:

Well done ACT's Rodney, Heather, Ken and Richard, NZ First's Ron and Brian and of course Katherine, Pansy and Clem from National.

As for the Labour MPs who voted against - John Tamihere, Ross Robertson, Harry Duynhoven, Clayton Cosgrove, Taito Phillip Field and Damien O'Connor - all I will say is they are very lucky they don't depend on the Labour Party list for their election.  I am ashamed that they have "Labour" attached to their names.  To vote against this legislation indicates their values base is not Labour's. 

My only sadness is that this has become so politicised.  This should not be anything like the scale of debate that was seen around the Prostitution Reform Bill, because that was a far harder issue.  Sadly though the debate has been polarised and made more hysterical by the bigots on the other side.  (Note that I am not saying all opponents are bigots; those who are opposed for a range of comprehensible reasons have been perfectly civil in the debate.  Their voices have not been loudest however.)

It has been as big, if not bigger, than the PRB debate.

I expect a slightly smaller majority for the third reading debate, and I expect the referendum amendments to be chucked out on its ear.

Comments

[span(ner in the works)]

why will it drop again?

i too have been surprised about the vehemence of the anti-camp, given the response to the PRB. Perhaps they are still mad about that and have used some of their venom on the CUB instead?

[hans]

Garth George is the youth wing leader of United Future.

[Jordan]

It will drop if Ron Mark and Brian Donnelley vote against, given that the referendum stuff won't get through.

That said, if NZ First really believes in a referendum and there isn't going to be one, then they should all abstain.

If they don't abstain they are taking a position, and so should be free to vote their consciences.

[Oliver Woods]

About the Labour MPs voting against, it's not as though the Labour Party is ideologically homogenous and united in it's "values". Even though I personally support the legislation, I CAN see that it is undermining marriage by allowing 'de facto' (which will no longer be de facto) couples to get civil unions and I'm not sure whether this is going to have a particularly stabilising effect on society in the years to come. I would much more strongly support the legislation if it just dealt with legal recognition and equality to marriage of homosexual relationships, if the participants of one were willing to enter such an agreement of course.

[Jordan]

How can Civil Unions, providing an option for de facto couples, undermine marriage - which is already an option for the vast majority of those same couples?

And you're wrong - people still can and will be de facto couples. What makes you think otherwise?

[Oliver Woods]

Hang on, why would you remain a de facto couple if you could have a civil union which would hardly alter, if only beneficially, the status quo?

"How can Civil Unions, providing an option for de facto couples, undermine marriage - which is already an option for the vast majority of those same couples?"

Civil Unions will just encourage more and more people to eliminate marriage as a viable relationship arrangement. I am not saying this is necessarily negative, but in my mind it is simply fact.

[span(ner in the works)]

plenty of couples don't want to have that extra level of commitment that marriage (or CU) would give - de facto is the way they want to be for various reasons.

i suspect that the number of marriages will drop slightly, as those who prefer CUs but got married because they had no other option shift, and the number of CUs to be higher than the drop in marriages, as same-sex couples and those who didn't want to get married but do want a CU, get it together.

but not all couples will want to make a long term commitment, ie a CU or a marriage.