Monday, September 06, 2004

Equal Rights for some couples?

No Right Turn in this post seems to think I have an unhealthy obsession against gays and lesbians in light of the civil union bills. He's wrong. If I did, I wouldn't have any gay and lesbian friends.

My post during the weekend,(in which, incidentally, the Civil Union Bill (CUB) was not mentioned) featured a couple and asked should this couple have equal rights as married couples now, later, or not at all?. Of course this would equally apply to a heterosexual couple in the same situation. I picked that couple as they are one of many pushing the issue, but were not even together when the march was mooted by Destiny. That, of course was quite obvious. Also, it is not heterosexual de facto couples who are pushing for legal (or social) recognition of their relationships.

My post questioned whether all relationships should have equal legal standing from day one, or whether there should be a threshold, as in the Property (Relationships) Act. NRT has discussed the same thing over here

NRT knows as well as I do that the "civil union bills", together, actually affect more heterosexual couples than gay couples.Despite hte fact that the Civil Union Bill(CUB) is designed for, and by gay, couples. Both bills are designed for couples in long term relationships - and go hand in hand.

NRT thinks that the Relationship (Statutory References) Bill (RSRB )has very little to do with civil unions or gays, in terms of recognition of de facto relationships.

Oh yeah? David Benson-Pope doesn't say that and he's the minister pushing these bills. He says the bill affects heterosexual couples - and also gay couples, as if it was an after thought. Without the RSRB the CUB bill would be gutless, therefore the CUB revolves around the RSRB being passed. So has a lot to do with civil unions, of which many could be heterosexual couples.

The weird thing is I agree with much of what NRT says. Namely the RSRB should be gender blind, (it has to be to comply with our Human Rights legislation,) a threshhold time -such as in the Property Relationships Act - may be appropriate, and that the 'religious right' sees the two bills as a gay attack on the institution of marriage. Where I don’t agree with NRT is his assertion that these bills are substantive equality. The only way to have equality is to change the Marriage Act and/or include adoption. The Government refuses to do this as it is not seen as politically achievable - and that is the only reason.

Most people do not understand these bills, and have never read them. At least I have made an attempt to do both.

I can see through all the Benson-Pope -led spin. And on that note, Benson Pope's office still has to come back to me with the alleged proof that Destiny teaches their followers to hate and Maxim has strong links to the Christian Right.

It's time to back up allegations with proof, Minister.


Anonymous said... the fact that the Maxim Institute
has probably been repeatedly cited in the
context of conservative evangelical submissions
against the Civil Union and Relationship (Stat
Ref) Bills, and that it routinely cites materials
from avowed US conservative Christian organisations
isn't enough?

I will concede that I was wrong about Maxim's centralised control over the rest of the NZ Christian
Right though. Who would have thought it'd be such a
damp squib on this issue?


Idiot/Savant said...

Given that the CU bill is the Marriage Act with the serial numbers filed off, that the omnibus bill grants the same rights to both CUd and married couples (except for technical implementation details such as which list your name goes on), and the strong anti-discrimination provisions in the Human Rights Act, how are civil unions not substantive equality?

You're right that it is not full and complete equality - that will only come by gender-blinding the Marriage Act (and that will come). But the only difference will be the name - civil unions will be effectively equal to marriage in every way which matters.

As for adoption, that too will come. It's only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

and now we come to the rub.
access to children, the next generation.
final societal acceptance.

No matter the law, no matter the arguement.
As far as I'm concerned a man is made for woman.
It's in the design.
the hard wiring is for the opposite gender.
the design shows the genetics.
it's logical.

the software is the choice.
and that's why it will never be acceptable as a choice.
for homosexuality goes against design.
it therefore goes against family which is a man and a woman.
and that's without this being called God or some such not even in the arguement.