Civil Unions through 66 – 50
June 24th, 2004 at 10:49 pm by David FarrarWell I am pleased the Civil Unions Bill got through the first reading 66 – 50. Apart from the fact I support the Bill, I think it is a pity if any conscience issue doesn’t get at least select committee consideration. A number of MPs voted for it on that basis, so final outcome very unclear.
The NZ Herald has a good article with who voted what way. They don’t do a summary by party though, so here it is:
Labour 42 to 6 (3 absent)
National 5 to 22
NZ First 2 to 11
ACT 6 to 2
Green 9 to 0
United Future 0 to 8
Progressive 2 to 0
Independent 1 to 0
Total 66 to 50 (3 absent)
Labour had eight MPs not vote for the Bill (would have failed without centre right votes). Only surprise for me was Tamihere voting against.
Rather disappointed only five Nats in favour – was hoping for 10 or so. Absoutely great Don Brash voted for it. He supported it of course because he believes it will be better than the status quo, but from my view it is politically useful that now harder to demonise him as an “uncaring racist conserative blah blah blah” when he has a sensible liberal voting record. Also great that Clem voted for it – I often forget he is not just a Tamaki conservative. Katherine, Pansy and Lockwood – well done also.
My two favourite NZ First MPs voted for it – Ron and Brian. The first time NZ First has split on a conscience issue I think. They do also get to have the MP who made the biggest pillock of himself – Bill Gudgeon who called the bill “an abomination to all mankind” and “despicable”. As part of mankind, my message to Mr Gudgeon is to shut the fuck up, and stop speaking on my behalf.
Also good to see ACT reflect their branding as a liberal party with 75% voting for including Rodney, Richard and to my huge surprise Stephen Franks. Good one Stephen. God knows how Deborah Coddington was ever in the Libertarianz as she was initially against prostitution law reform and also against this.
Every party leader except Peters and Dunne voted in favour. How often would one have that happen.
Quite funny how strongly I feel on this issue, despite being unaffected myself (I am quite traditional and would like a church wedding). Probably the fact I know so many people in long term committed same sex relationships, and that this bill means so much to them and their sense of worth as a couple.
It will be interesting to see how the Relationships Omnibus Bill goes next week. Should have well over 70 in favour as even some United Future MPs may be voting for it.
No tag for this post.
June 24th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Coddington and Newman should be ashamed of themselves.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 8:36 am
Perhaps Coddington believes that the state should not be involved in recognizing interpersonal relationships and is voting for less of this rather than more? But then that wouldn’t gel with her prostitution stance … :/
The biggest shocker for me is to discover that DPF has “two favorite NZ First MPs” !!!
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 9:37 am
I dare say DPF is speaking in a relative sense with the NZF thing.
After all, look at Bill Gudgeon.
I was also v disappointed with two of the Nat speakers – Judith Collins and Brian Connell (particularly the latter) were annoying and disappointing both.
Tight result, lots of work to do…
Jordan
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 9:37 am
I dare say DPF is speaking in a relative sense with the NZF thing.
After all, look at Bill Gudgeon.
I was also v disappointed with two of the Nat speakers – Judith Collins and Brian Connell (particularly the latter) were annoying and disappointing both.
Tight result, lots of work to do…
Jordan
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 9:39 am
Why would God know about Libertianz members reasons for joining:-)
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 9:52 am
yes I’m surprised by Coddington too – would have thought she’d be all in favour of this kind of thing, how odd. will have to bug The Whig to find out her reasoning.
What I found most interesting about the few speeches I listened to was Judith Collins admitting there were times in (her?) marriage when you don’t love the other person at all… Wonder how her husband felt about that!?!
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 10:20 am
Well, I am very happy that it passed but still disappointed that some MPs who have flown liberal colours previously chose not to this time. At the very least I had hoped more would commit to supportng it to select committee. I am quite sure that the relationships bill will pass with higher numbers – a number of MPs have mentioned they would split their vote and vote against civil unions and for the relationships bill. Seems peculiar to me… and a bit of a cop out. I guess this is more of a black and white issue for me though, and I can’t see how anyone’s marriage gets hurt by civil unions being available.
While there were a few speeches that I found pretty repulsive, I remind myself of the horrendous speeches against the Homosexual Law Reorm Bill. Does this mean we’ve at least made some positive moves as a society in terms of respect? I cetainly hope so.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 11:01 am
I’m rather staggered at Deborah’s vote against the Bill myself!
I don’t know her as well as some of the other ACT MPs, but I can only guess that her reasoning actually is a libertarian throwback – she doesn’t believe the State should involve itself in sexual relationships at all. It is unlikely that it comes from any conservatism – remember she was with Alister Taylor for near on three decades and never married him. Maybe she thinks it’s just being politically correct and unnecessary – reasons which I can accept and understand, if not actually agree with.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 11:35 am
do you think now that it is going to Select Committee she (Coddington) could be persuaded to vote for it? she seems to me (having never met her) to be quite a rigid sort of person, and possibly not worth lobbying? what do you think Whiggy?
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 1:38 pm
Just stumbled across here from a link on NRT – Coddington, apparently, didn’t vote for the bill because she didn’t want to support Helen Clark and she only supports full marriage equality. This, at least, according to an article from the Herald.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
I think that is entirely possible – and I would not describe her as rigid. In fact, she is probably more likely to have her mind changed by good argument than most of them. She initially opposed the prostitution law as well, but was later otherwise persuaded. I am hoping it will prove so in this instance.
Jim Peron’s arguments ( http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=75 ) are good ones and well worth using.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
I wonder what Coddington’s good (gay) friend Lindsay Perigo would think of her decision.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
Carl: Petty politics and stupidity, in other words. Dammit, human rights are too important for that!
We all know that the CU bill doesn’t go far enough – but stamping our feet and demanding amendment of the marriage act or nothing doesn’t actually make things any better. Better to fight for what change you can, and _keep_on_fighting_ if it isn’t enough.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 4:34 pm
Jordan –
Putting partisanship aside, do you think you could explain to Janet Mackie, Ahsraf Choudhary and Winnie Laban how to a) lodge a proxy or b) recognise the sound of a division bell? I wasn’t terribly impressed by Connell (who I didn’t expect better from anyway) and Collins (I did) but at least they didn’t cop out.
For the record, if I was in Parliament I would have voted for the Bill to go to select committee and opposed it at all other stages. Sorry, but I find it insulting to be told (as I was by one supporter) that “well, it’s as good as you’re ever going to get so stop bitching.” What a fabulous declaration of principle and human dignity!
I can only say thank God people like Fran Wilde and Katherine O’Reagan knew what a principle was back in 1986, or I guess Jordon and I would both be sex criminals who no human rights protections at all.
And, Mark, I won’t presume to speak for Lindsey but I suspect he would argue that the State shouldn’t be sticking it’s nose into the contractual affairs of two consenting adults at all.
Vote:June 25th, 2004 at 5:45 pm
My comments about Ron and Brian are not just relative, but absolute. Ron Mark especially I regard as a great guy and a good mate.
Silas – very good
I understand Lindsay supported the bill, but this is not first hand.
Craig – do you think gay marriage is going to be easier to do in one or two steps? Do you think the 1993 human rights act (banning discrimination) could have passed without the act removing homosexuality as a crime having been law for some time?
Vote:June 26th, 2004 at 10:21 am
David –
I really want to be wrong about this, but I think full marriage equality has become that much harder when liberals (who don’t like marriage at all) and the moderates (who just want the issue off the agenda for good) can say “why don’t you just go get civil unionised”? And haven’t the proponents of this Bill been screaming from the rafter that this ISN’T gay marriage in drag or the first step down the slippery slope?
Sorry, guys, you can’t have it both ways.
Vote:June 26th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
But if the legal bits and pieces are exactly the same then what’s in a name? What the government calls your relationship is far less important than the rights and responsibilities they give you as a result. Get a civil union and nobody is going to pull you up on calling your partner “my husband”.
Anyone who looks to a government for their relationship’s semantic legitimacy is still in the lord and peasant mentality.
Vote:June 27th, 2004 at 1:10 am
Craig –
Lindsey Perigo. Interesting. I don’t know what he is up to, but I wouldn’t like to put words into his mouth.
I’m not going to make a comment about the Labour MPs who didn’t vote. I’m happy to record my anger and disappointment at those who voted against. I think both categories should have voted for, so the Bill could go to select committee and get broad-based public input.
I also think you’re being a bit wrong-headed about purism over marriage. Do you think the current Parliament would pass an amendment to the Marriage Act making it clear that it was open to same-sex couples?
If you do think that, well, I think you’re wrong.
If you don’t think they would, what would you prefer to do? Wait for something that could take a long time, or never happen at all? Or get something through now which is substantially similar to marriage in its rights and responsibilities?
I make no apology for not being a fundamentalist on this issue. I’d rather see the real impact of discrimination resolved, than hold out for something conceptually purer.
Will Marriage ever be open to same sex couples? Yes, I suspect so. Will it be soon? Sadly, I suspect not – not while fundie wankers like Maxim are stirring up public opinion with their vile, hateful imported bullshit.
Jordan
Vote:June 29th, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Jordan –
Well, I’ve no intention of apologising for my ‘purism’ over marriage anymore than I intend to resile from my ‘purism’ on any other fundamental question of civil rights and genuine equality before the law for all homosexual citizens of this country.
I don’t think Parliament would currently pass a Marriage Act Ammendment Bill – but it’s sure not going to happen if nobody is honestly making the arguments or building a constituency. And instead of using Maxim as an all purpose scratching post, just consider how you’re playing their game by their rules rather than having the courage to operate on principle.
If you say that you’re perfectly happy with homosexuals being put into a second-rate kinda-sorta-not quite-just don’t use the m-word arrangement, I have to respect that. If Clark and Benson-Pope choose to enter into a ‘civil union’, I couldn’t care less. But if you think you’re really dealing to prejudice with semantics you’re, at best, spectacularly naive.
Vote:June 30th, 2004 at 11:42 am
while i see there is some validity in the argument that civil unions are the “apartheid” option for homosexual couples, i think the practical implications of the new legislation will work to build a more positive and accepting environment, which could ultimately lead to an amendment to the Marriage Act.
the day to day effect that the CUB will have for homosexual couples will give them a legitimacy they crave (and deserve) while at the same time hopefully making those who oppose the bill out of a fear based on ignorance less scared. (NOT those who oppose it on crap religious arguments, there’s just no saving some people)
one of my relatives is very opposed to the legislation, but i think this is largely because he knows no homosexuals (or thinks he doesn’t). he hasn’t had any role models, for want of a better term, of healthy, normal gay and lesbian relationships. i’m sure that if he had he would not be so rigid about this. i have watched him change his attitude to a number of things over time as he has had this kind of exposure (eg couples who live “in sin”, gay teachers, etc). with legislation that makes homosexuals more comfortable in their skin and their society hopefully opposers who fall into this kind of category will learn through personal observation that they were misguided.
maybe that’s a bit naive and optimistic, but i think it’s a crucial part of building towards getting that amendment – turning fear into acceptance.
just my 2c
Vote:July 26th, 2004 at 2:50 pm
David
I will ask you a question I recently asked Tim Barnett when he came to Dunedin. Given that the marriage act does not just discriminate against commited relationships between same sex couples and but also commited relationships between brothers and sisters. Adult children and their parents and polygamous unions. Why does the civil Unions Bill not also allow incestous unions to be recognised in law?
Could you clarify what your and the stance of those in the Nats who support the CUB is on the current criminal laws prohibiting consensual incest.
I find it hard to understand how a person can say they oppose discrimination against commited long term relationships and then support it on almost every issue except same sex relationships.
Matt
Vote: