shifting the debate on marriage

There has been some opposition to the Marriage (Gender Clarification) bill, primarily by gay people and unmarried straight people who support same sex marriage and don't appear to be aware of the difference between distinction and discrimination - or the meaning of the word "marriage".

They are trying to shift the debate from one being "pro-marriage" to one of "anti-gay", as if it were one and the same. They are trying to shift the debate from one clarifying what the current marriage law is to one of discrimination against same sex couples - and the "undoing of human rights" (as if marriage was a human right!) in an attempt to force their minority view on society. That's because, to them, addressing discrimination is not about getting rid of unfair treatment, it is about gay rights - forcing their distinctive choices and minority views through the lawbooks, calling that "human rights", and then not acting when there is a law change. We saw this with civil unions. The Civil Union Act was more about gay rights than gay - or straight - relationships.

This bill, which will have wide appeal, will not discriminate against same sex couples any more than the Marriage Act curently does, and it is about time some in the gay community grew up, realised this, and admitted it. This bill will not mean that landlords or anyone else will be able to unfairly discriminate between those who are married and those who are not, any more than the giving out marriage certificates is discrimination against single people.

Lets face it, marriage is the preferred relationship status in law, and always will be. There will be more people married this month than have had civil unions all year. In fact there are probably more gays married to their female partners at the moment than gays and lesbians in civil unions world wide.

If gay couples really wanted marriage, they would get their civil unions in droves now, because they did say that the states refusal to recognise unmarried relationships meant that gay couples didnt have a choice to have relationship recognition. But they have a choice now and most are not acting on it. In fact, most civil union celebrants in New Zealand havent even done their first civil union because they cant find anyone, despite many of them advertising. Perhaps many should lead by example and get one themselves. It's my view, based on gay couples that I know, that most do not want to formally register their relationship with the state, be it with a civil union or a marriage.

So why the opposition to this bill from a minority of people whom the bill will not affect?

This bill does not unfairly discriminate against same sex couples - or anyone else. There may be some who will not agree with me, and of course they will write comments accordingly, clearly highlighting points of difference.