Civil Unions vs Gay Marriage
October 26th, 2004 at 7:45 pm by David FarrarDavid W Young has blogged his opposition to the Civil Union Bill on the basis he wants gay marriage and adoption rights, and thinks passing of the CUB will make achieving gay marriage harder.
Now David’s a fag, and I’m not (well last time I checked anyway) so I should listen to what he says, and see whether there is any hope for misguided social liberals like Russell Brown and myself.
David Young has asked “Will either of them join a fight for full marriage rights? And for that matter, do either of them plan to actually ‘register’ their relationships as civil unions?”
Will if I tried to classify any of my current umm temporary or long distance alliances as civil unions I’d be found guilty under the fair trading act. But when I do meet that gullible blind blond lawyer, yes I’d like to marry her.
But to answer the question, no I won’t have a problem if gay couples can marry also. I’d be quite happy to vote for that. In my ideal world, the state would not marry people at all. The state would recognise registered partnerships, and I would actually give the churches intellectual property rights to the term marriage so some couples can choose to have their partnership called a marriage by getting an appropriate church to marry them. But no legal difference would result from this. So I might have an Anglican marriage and David W Young could get a marriage in a church which supports gay marriages.
I do have some issues around gay adoption. But that is a debate for another day.
David takes the view that civil unions will make it harder to get gay marriage. That view is shared by other gay friends such as Other Pundit and Shadowfoot. It’s a legitimate view, albeit it one I do not agree with. I also note the Colmar Brunton poll found a majority in favour of civil unions, but against gay marriage.
I think that trying to jump the whole way to gay marriage is one step, is unlikely to succeed. As a comparison could one have imagined that if Fran Wilde in 1985 had not only tried to decriminalise homosexual acts, but also tried to ban discrimination, that it would have passed. I suspect it would have been heavily defeated and off the agenda for a decade or so.
Now what did happen is that after homosexual acts were legalised in 1985, the world did not end as many predicted. Tens of thousands of people came out of the closet and almost all NZers ended up working with an openly gay colleague or having a gay friend. And so when in 1993 it was proposed one should not discriminate against someone just because they were gay, it passed with almost no opposition.
I predict the same with civil unions and gay marriage. If civil unions do pass, then society will get used to having legal gay couples, once again the world and western civilisation will not end, and in seven to ten years when someone proposes hey why not allow gay marriages also, it will be quite unexceptional.
No tag for this post.
October 26th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
I agree with you, I’ve been a part of the campaign for civil unions in Auckland, but my absolute preference would be for all registered partnerships to be CU’s, and the question of whether that relationship is marriage a matter for the churches.
My only concern is: How do you define Church? Could Satanists give a relationship marrital status? It would probably end up as a situation where a couple enters a CU, and if it becomes marriage it has to have the name of the sponser on the form, like the catholic church or the anglican church for instance.
Does this solve discrimination problems?
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
No question, I support gay marriage (and adoption for that matter).
This was a big question for me when the Civil Union Bill was first announced – I held back on supporting it until talking to a number of my gay friends and hearing opinions from various gay rights organisations, the vast majority of whom are in favour of the CUB. Because of that, I decided to support the CUB rather than hold out for gay marriage, as I figured I should allow those who will be influenced the most to have their say (I myself am straight and wish to have a culturally Jewish marriage when the day comes and more than likely will not be in NZ, so CUB is irrelevant to me).
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 8:49 pm
Call me a pedant, but didn’t the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 come into law in mid-’86?
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 10:05 pm
David, about a week ago I started writing a post which pretty much made the same argument as yours. I didn’t publish it in the end, because I suddenly became unsure as to whether I was right.
I think Mr Young’s argument may have merit. It is a lot more difficult to argue for a simple name change to an existing right than it is to argue for equal rights where none existed before. In the latter case you can argue with some moral force, whereas if you are just changing a name, the argument that gays are simply being petty and attempting to devalue the “marriage franchise” carries a lot more weight.
From that standpoint it may be better for this bill to fail so that perhaps in ten years time parliament can more safely go the full nine yards.
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 10:43 pm
Why would you give churches IP rights over “marriage”? Civil marriage predates religious marriage ceremonies under English law, if we’re going to get into a fight about who “owns” marriage.
For that matter, pretend we do hand it over to religions – why do (presumably) Christian churches and not Orthodox Jews get to dictate the terms of marriage?
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 11:05 pm
Most definitely not Christian churhces only. Any Church that met basic criteria can do marriages in their name.
The marriage term has been associated with churches for most of the last 2,000 years, so I figure too hard to try and fight them for the term, let them compete amongst themselves for it.
Technically the Roman and Greek Gods were also associated with marriage ceremonies. They have been mainly religious for a very long time.
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 11:34 pm
Why should the government be into regulating who can provide a marriage?
The government should provide a civil union, and not register anything about marriage. The civil union purely deals with your co-mingling of assets, your rights to speak on another’s behalf (in illness for example), and generally your right to be a family.
Your church can marry you if you wish. Your celebrant can marry you. Satanists, your grandfather, your kaumatua, or anyone else you see fit can marry you. Alternatively, you can just tell people you are married.
My partner (not same sex) and I sometimes tell people we are married when it is convenient for us to do so – not too many people have told me that I am devaluing marriage by doing this. Most of my friends in long term relationships do the same.
Once we get the government out of deciding who is married and who isn’t, many people will see that what matters is what their marriage means to them, not what someone else’s marriage may mean. If marriage to them means “to death does us part” then that is great. If marriage to someone else means “as long as it is convenient” then so be it.
An analogy may be another religious concept – a minister (or preacher, or whatever). The government doesn’t regulate who can call themselves a minister in a church – the government doesn’t decide which religions have validity. This is the way it should be – once government starts moving into this space bad things happen.
Vote:October 26th, 2004 at 11:40 pm
FYI David, Jews were doing marriage long before Romans or Greeks….but I hardly think it’s relevant.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 1:20 am
Interesting point about outlawing discrimination. The only decent argument I’ve seen for not going the whole hog. Certainly a better argument than why don’t we sit on our hands for ten years and then see if we have the balls. Really Blair.
I thought it was typical of Labour’s pragmatic and craven approach that they adopted such a wishy washy term, but intended marriage.
I’d like to see it go the whole hog, but would settle for this compromise so it could act as a staging-post for the future.
It ought to be a no-brainer, even to our friends in Destiny Church and their ilk. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out (and I paraphrase)
Vote:shouldn’t the adoption of the norms of marriage amongst gays be the principal wish of conservatives? Values like monogamy, and steadfastness and all of the positive effects they say marriage brings to society.
October 27th, 2004 at 9:45 am
It’s a no brainer about supporting the Civil Union stuff – it’s about substantive equality. I want the rights I am currently denied to be available should I choose to exercise them, and the chances of changing the Marriage Act to achieve that now are minimal. Civil Unions provide a legal alternative which provides a basically identical set of rights and obligations to marriage, and so it is effectively the same.
It will then only be a matter of time until marriage comes along afterwards, of that I have no doubt. I have little patience for the people who say, “all at once or never at all” – it’s a blinkered view, one which hurts people in the present for some presumed theoretical gain in the future. I think it’ll be quicker to get to marriage with an intermediate step, than trying to do the whole thing at once. That’s just how society changes. DPF your parallel with homosexual law reform is a good one for this.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 9:53 am
One more point, having now read David’s post, about adoption – the CU stuff *does not change* adoption law. Adoption law is covered elsewhere, I think in the Care of Children Bill. It’s a whole different debate from that over whether same-sex relationships should have access to legal recognition, and attempting to elide the two arguments doesn’t really aid in any cause.
And as for David’s plea – yes, I will be out there campaigning for same-sex marriage. Nobody on the CU campaign that I’m aware of is opposed to opening up marriage; we’re just interested in making progress where it’s possible to do so.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 10:10 am
Your idea of limiting marriages to something done in a church is absurd. Marriages have taken place in every human society for thousands of years, long before there were churches, and take place today in societies where there are no churches and even where religion is banned. Huge numbers of marriages in New Zealand take place not in a church and not performed by religious figures, and I am not talking about a registry wedding, either.
If people want to get married they should be allowed to do so anywhere and by whomever they so wish, without the state telling them it has to be in a church (as you want) or anywhere else. If someone wants to get married by an Elvis impersonator on a sidewalk in Las Vegas (as some friends of mine did) then that’s their business.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 10:41 am
Paul: if you look at the history of British marriage legislation, the government originally got into the game to prevent the “perils of clandestinity” (i.e. bigamy). We have state involvement to provide a register – so we know who is married and who is not – and standards – so other people cannot say that you are not married because the ceremony wasn’t conducted according to their peculiar religious tradition (the latter being the primary reason for the British introduction of civil marriage in 1836). It’s really the same reason for government involvement in land titles – to provide clarity and enforceability.
As for surrendering the word “marriage” to the religious bigots, I’m not that fussed either way. What I care about is that we have a secular, non-discriminatory framework for recognising relationships. I can see why we might want to seperate that from the word “marriage”, but OTOH letting churches “own” marriage will just perpetuate the idea that they “own” sexual morality. Why the hell would we want to do that?
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 11:06 am
The activists who are disgusted by gays and lesbians are more concerned about the redefinition of homosexuality than they are about the definition of civil marriage. By extending civil marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, society is voicing greater tolerance towards gays and lesbians.
So I think that this issue should be thought of in the form of two questions. First, what is the place for gays and lesbians in society (in general)? Second, what is the purpose of civil marriage, and how does this intersect with the rights of all citizens (including gays and lesbians).
I think that the first matters most, because from it will come the second. We can’t ask if all citizens should be part of a civil institution if they are considered outside from the start. (This would be like asking what is the purpose of drinking fountains when faced with the larger question of what to do with Jim Crow laws.)
Bush’s statement sends a message of tolerance about gays and lesbians. I think that this is good for the overall effort at extending all rights equally to both gays and straights.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
Church marriages in NZ are both religious AND civil marriages, ie the Minister get the couple to sign the register where they are ‘married’ a second time with the minister as a civil celebrant.
Vote:I would say to those who want a religious marriage you get the religious side of divorce (if any), property division, ( Sharia anyone?), inheritance along religious lines as well. Watch ‘religious marriage’ go practically extinct overnight
October 27th, 2004 at 1:00 pm
First, DPF, I’ll happily stand the first round(and the next dozen or so) if you’re right and I’m wrong on this.
I’ll have to take Jordan’s word that “nobody on the CU campaign that I’m aware of is opposed to opening up marriage,” so I guess the people who are saying exactly the reverse to me – inevitably off the record – are having a tease.
I can respect those who think marriage equality is either irrelevant or ideologically obnoxious, though I don’t agree with either POV. What disturbs me is the rather naive belief that basic questions of civil rights can be compromised in the sure hope that a desirable result is, somehow, historically inevitable.
(And, yes, I do believe it is as much a matter of civil rights as removing bans on inter-racial or inter-faith marriages. Again, decent people can argue the toss but that’s where I stand.)
I’ve zero interest in taking the J-Lo role in the Gay Shotgun Wedding Planner; what I don’t appreciate is anyone – whether it is the Maxim Institute or the CUB Campaign – deciding that my choices should be theirs or nothing.
More than anything, I think both sides of the CUB debate blew a change to have a serious and thoughtful dialog on what marriage really means and why it matters. That might be the biggest loss of all.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
What we have here is the classic conflict between people who believe it is acceptable to compromise for political expediency, and people who accept no compromise to their principles.
It surprises me not at all to see David F and Jordan, political animals both, on the same side here.
Re the historical origins of marriage as a secular contract or religious sacrament: I don’t care. Arguing about what marriage should be now based on what it used to be in some arbitrary past time and place is interesting but fruitless. People who say it’s always been religious should be slapped down (because they’re factually wrong) and people who say marriage has a secular history should be slapped down because they’re yielding the debate about what is morally right to people who want to quibble about history.
I/S: surrendering the word “marriage” to the bigots is to continue to privilege heterosexuality in law as well as the community at large. If you’re a pragmatic person, that might be acceptable in the short or medium term, while the community acclimatises; if you’re a principled (antidiscrimination) person, it won’t be.
After much soul searching, I think I’m in the political camp. I don’t really believe we can change enough people’s hearts and minds far enough to get all the way in one go. But props to David Y for articulating the end goal strongly, so we don’t forget and stop part-way.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
Perhaps we need a judge to just declare that marriage is a human right which covers both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Then there’s no need for the messy business of convincing the proles. They are let’s face it, too unenlightened to conduct and consider moral and social good arguments and then assent or dissent to any proposed legislated changes arising thereof. Much better for elites just to go the whole hog and do what needs to be done anyway. The people will acclimatise. They always do.
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
Marriage as a human right ?
It allready is. We take away prisoners voting rights but they still have the right to marry ( as long as they are not the same sex)
Vote:October 27th, 2004 at 10:01 pm
stephen: “compromise for expediency” is pejorative, as I am sure you intended it to be. As someone who has been involved with activist politics and party politics, and taken both rigid ideological positions and more pragmatic ones, my point of view is simply that which delivers results. It’s fine to stand hard on your principles but if people don’t share them, you’re on your own. If by taking a slower route to the same destination you bring people with you, as they get used to the idea, then you are actually doing what democracy demands.
Unless I am very confused, New Zealand is a democracy. People can get all scantimonious about ‘standing up for their principles’ but as far as I am concerned, all you do if you oppose piecewise improvements is defeat what you claim to be standing for.
Vote:October 28th, 2004 at 7:39 am
On the contrary, Jordan, I intended that phrase purely descriptively, and if you read to the end of the comment you would see that in this case it is an approach I agree with.
In our society we claim to admire people who brook no compromise as strong minded and virtuous, to the extent that words like “expedient”, “pragmatic” and “compromise” can be used as slights. This leaves me a little short of suitable vocabulary.
Vote:October 28th, 2004 at 9:37 am
Gordon, did you read DPF on Justice Scalia and originalism?? We have Parliament to make laws, that’s why we vote for them and not for the judges.
Vote:It’s interesting that no-one’s mentioned children in virtually the whole post. I would suggest that children (and thus continuing the species) is the most important part of marriage and that marriage is the best way to ensure that children grow up in a stable environment. And thus I see gay marriage as wrong. On the whole, I support the CUB (after a lot of thought!), but there are some rights given by nature, and legislating for gays to have children is like legislating for people in wheelchairs to be able to walk. And I don’t think that a relationship can really be a marriage without the possibility of children.
October 28th, 2004 at 11:09 am
Tim, a relationship cant be a marriage without the possibility of children ??
Well its tough luck for all those couples who are over 50 getting married again. I suppose you would say serves them right for getting divorced .
‘possibility of children’ is just code for ‘religious sanctioned marriage’
Vote:Lets hear it for the whole religious view on marriage, divorce,custody, inheritance. Lets hear whats their entire package is, not just cherry pick aand say ‘marriage is only for a man and a women’.
The rest of it would go ‘Marriage is forever – no divorce’
No abortion or even no contraception
The husband is in charge, and the wife has to stay at home
Inheritance is by primogeniture through the male line
October 28th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
Tim – Do you then support banning marriage for the infertile? The senior citizen?
For some interesting reading –
Empirical studies on Lesbian and Gay parenting: http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html
Vote:October 28th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
Tim I was fully aware of the Scalia post. My comment was satirical and made the (obviously too subtle) point that many posters in this thread are just as contemptous of the unwashed masses as the activist judges that Scalia rails against. I have posted at length on David’s site about the unseriousness and selfishness of homosexuality (and other contemporary male behaviours such as my own confirmed bachelor status), historical manifestations of the same group of male lifestyle choices, and the detrimental effect on the social fabric that this refusal of modern males to growup will and has had. For the record, I have no specific contempt for homosexuality and have no religious axe to grind.
Vote: