Treatment of same sex relationships

The relationships bill went through it's second reading last night and and passed 74-45 with one no vote - from National.

Tony Milne from Tim Barnett's office kindly faxed David Farrar the list of who voted for and against the bill after Mr Farrar kindly asked for it.

Here's the vote, with MPs who voted for the bill:

ACT 4 - 5 - Hide, Coddington, Roy and Shirley
Green 9 - 0
Labour 50 - 1
Maori 0 - 1
National 8 - 18 (1 no vote) - Key, Mapp, McCully, Rich, Simich, Sowry, Williamson and Wong
NZ First 0 - 13
Progressive 2 - 0
United Future 1 - 7 - Dunne

Taito Philip Field was the sole Labour MP against the bill and Peter Dunne the sole United Future MP for the bill. Other United Future MP's such as Gordon Copeland and possibly Judy Turner would also have voted for the bill had reference to civil unions been deleted.

Labour MPs who voted against the second reading of the civil union bill were JT, Clayton Cosgrove , Harry Duynhoven, Taito Philip Field, Damian O'Connor and Ross Robertson, yet all but one wanted to give teeth to a bill that they originally opposed at the same stage.

Likewise, National MP's John Key, Wayne Mapp, Murray McCully, Maurice Williamson and Roger Sowry supported civil unions but not the relationships Bill, as well as ACT's Prebble and Shirley.

One wonders why they voted for civil unions in the first place. To me, that’s like buying a car, refusing to put petrol in it and expecting it to be driven.

Same sex couples will still not be treated the same as heterosexual couples - married and unmarried - for social welfare purposes for two years anyway. The plan to recognise same-sex couples under social welfare law would have saved $10 million a year.

Why the backdown? Labour MP Tim Barnett said the two-year lag was designed to give the couples time to reorganise their affairs.

So how come Mr Barnett thinks opposite sex de facto couples - and newly married couples who have not lived together before marriage for that matter - can organise their affairs better than same sex couples?

The Herald noted that:

It would also give officials time to consider how to deal with same-sex couples whose relationship might not be public knowledge.

This did not mean they would be treated differently, rather that the issue required sensitivity and an acknowledgment the law change could make some couples vulnerable, especially to prying neighbours.

This to me sounds like some gay people feel shame or embarrassment in having a partner of the same sex.

If you are gay, and in a relationship, wouldn’t you like it to be public knowledge, just as heterosexual de facto relationships are. I would have thought so.

If not, how then can you honestly expect - and demand - to be treated equally to heterosexual couples?