Big news on Hard News

Russell Brown and Lindsay Perigo are two of the few commentators that have intellegently mentioned relationship recognition noting that the omnibus legislation is more important than the civil union legislation. About time somebody else said that. Perigo said it last night on the late news too - in fact he lifted a quote from the Maxim Institute/ United Future perspective saying that Civil Unions were really marriage " in all but name", and a "backdoor to marriage".

Russell noted that the key plank to Peter Dunne's opposition is that the state sanctions marriage because marriage usually involves children, whereas same sex relationships don't involve children. Well, they do, but not as a mother and father as do opposite sex couples.

Dunne may have been quoted in the Herald as saying that, but is that really the key plank? If kids were the reason why United Future thinks same sex couples shouldn't formalise their relationships, then why didn't this mention that. Kids are not even mentioned - the preservation of the institution of marriage and the alteration of the state of marriage are I would suggest the "key planks".

Russell maintains that it is Dunne's view that civil unions will replace marriage.

Really? I thought his view was that it would devalue marriage. Children or no children.

It's time United Future came out with a statement supporting the Omnibus bill - but apparently, its MP's don't want to do it before they've seen the bill itself.

Unlike Civil Unions legislation.