Civil union day

Today, the civil unions bill comes into force, and people can apply for a licence. Good luck to everybody who does.

But who voted for it?

There's a screaming match going on over at Just Left over Stephen Frank's attempt to gut the Human Rights Act by removing marital status and sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The amendments were contained in Supplementary Order Paper 336, and came in two parts. The first would have repealed sections 21(1)(b), 21(1)(m), and 21(1)(l)(iii), governing marital status, sexual orientation, and family status respectively. The second would have inserted a clause into the Human Rights Act specifically allowing individuals - but not the government - to refuse to provide employment or goods and services on the basis of "specified conduct", meaning

extra-marital sex, extra-marital child bearing, the breach of promises exchanged in marriage, desertion, same sex relationships in the nature of marriage, and homosexual sex

The above covers a whole lot more than gays; just off the top of my head, it would also permit refusing accommodation to unmarried couples or others in "immoral" relationships, denying employment to divorcees, adulterers, or anyone who has ever broken an engagement. It would also allow humiliating questions probing into every aspect of someone's sex life to be imposed as a precondition of employment, tenancy or service - and licence discrimination against those of us who think that there are some things that are simply none of an employer's fucking business. But what's really interesting is what it doesn't permit. While Franks justifies this provision on classical liberal grounds - that people should be free to discriminate however they like - his proposal does not permit discrimination against married people. Neither does it permit gay employers or shopkeepers to discriminate against straights, or adulterers or swingers to discriminate against monogamists. It is only those who don't conform to Franks' prejudices that are singled out.

In other words, what we have here is yet another example of Franks' gross intellectual dishonesty: a licensing of private coercion, but not on a level playing field. They guy isn't even a classical liberal; he's just a bigot in liberal clothing.

But it's not just about Franks, either. While he proposed this licence for prejudice, 30 other MPs voted for it. Here's a list of the guilty parties according to the relevant Hansard Advance:

• Adams (UF)
• Alexander (UF)
• Baldock (UF)
• Brash (N)
• Brown (NZF)
• Carter J (N)
• Catchpole (NZF)
• Collins (N)
• Connell (N)
• Donnelly (NZF)
• Eckhoff (ACT)
• Franks (ACT)
• Gudgeon (NZF)
• Jones (NZF)
• Mark (NZF)
• McNair (NZF)
• Newman (ACT)
• Ogilvy (UF)
• Paraone (NZF)
• Perry (NZF)
• Peters J (NZF)
• Peters W (NZF)
• Prebble (ACT)
• Roy (ACT)
• Shirley (ACT)
• Smith M (UF)
• Smith N (N)
• Sowry (N)
• Stewart (NZF)
• Turner (UF)
• Woolerton (NZF)

So, the whole of New Zealand First, two-thirds of ACT (including Ken Shirley, who I'd thought of as a relatively decent liberal), three-quarters of United Future (with the honourable exceptions of Peter Dunne and Gordon Copeland), and the moral ultraconservative rump of National (which now seems to include Don Brash) voted for a return to the morality of the 50's. This is something we should all remember come election-time.

As for the issue of the Human Rights Act itself, I've previously addressed it here. Preventing discrimination is vital to protecting human freedom, and every reason for abhorring it on the part of the government is also a reason for opposing it on the part of individuals. Discrimination is either unjust, or aims to coerce, or both - but injustice does not cease to be injustice, or coercion cease to be coercion simply because the perpetrator is a private individual rather than the state. Rather than offering us freedom, classical liberals are offering us a society where those with social or economic power can victimise or coerce those without, and usurp our autonomy in some of the most central decisions of our lives. That is freedom for the pike, and we are as justified in limiting it as we are in limiting the freedom of the strong to impose their will on the weak by physical violence.

A landmark day for freedom and equality

The Civil Union Bill has passed its third reading. While most of the legal legwork will be done by the companion omnibus bill, which has been delayed in select committee, it is still a landmark day for freedom and equality in New Zealand. Freedom because it marks a step away from the social conservative position that laws should reinforce (their) "moral values". And equality because it ends the obvious inequality of recognising different-sex, but not same-sex, partnerships. Instead, we are moving closer to a neutral state, which leaves decisions about family structure and relationships where they belong - with the people concerned - and does not try to influence them by stacking the legal deck.

There is still a long way to go, of course. We must ensure that same-sex couples enjoy full parental and adoption rights, just as different-sex couples do. And we must open up full marriage to people of all orientations, rather than leaving same-sex couples languishing in the half-way house. But that will come; the basic social acceptance gained by gays since the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform pretty much guarantees it.

Looking to the future, there is an obvious next step. In a few year's time, once people have seen that the recognition of same-sex relationships hasn't caused the end of the world, we can move forward. We should amend the marriage act to make it gender blind, allow free transfers between the two equivalent institutions, and let people decide for themselves how they want their relationships recognised.

Utterly, utterly dishonest

If anybody needs a further example of Stephen Franks' intellectual dishonesty over the Civil Union Bill, they only need to consider his minority view in the select committee report [PDF]:

Further, as a lawyer, the ACT member is affronted by a bill which establishes a machinery which focuses around the exchange of solemn vows, mimicking the marriage ceremony, without any definded content to the vows. In theory the parties could exchange vows to join in civil union for one day, without exclusivity

Why is this intellectually dishonest? Two reasons. Firstly, because the vows in a civil union are utterly meaningless in a legal sense. The parties could indeed vow to join in Civil Union for one day, without exclusivity - but they would still have to separate for two years before that union could be dissolved (unless they could access one of the specified grounds for immediate annulment - like being under 16). But secondly - and this is what makes it utterly, utterly dishonest - is that there is no legal content to marriage vows either. While people can (and usually do) swear faithfulness and exclusivity in their marriage vows, they don't have to; it is just as possible to swear to a short-term, non-exclusive relationship for marriage as it would be for a civil union, and it would be just as legally meaningless. As laid out in section 31 (3) (a) of the Marriage Act (1955), all that is required to solemnise a marriage is a statement by either party of "I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife or husband" or words to that effect. The rest of the ceremony is filler.

Stephen Franks continually portrays himself as being the man who actually reads the legislation and understands what it really means. He cannot therefore claim ignorance as a defence for the above - he is simply being grossly intellectually dishonest in order to pander to bigots.

The Vote

According to the Herald, the vote was:

Ayes: 65

• Jim Anderton (Prog C, Wigram)
• Rick Barker (Lab, Tukituki)
• Tim Barnett (Lab, Christchurch Central)
• David Benson-Pope (Lab, Dunedin South)
• Georgina Beyer (Lab, Wairarapa)
• Sue Bradford (Greens, list)
• Mark Burton (Lab, Taupo)
• Chris Carter (Lab, list)
• Steve Chadwick (Lab, Rotorua)
• Ashraf Choudhary (Lab, list)
• Helen Clark (Lab, Mt Albert)
• Michael Cullen (Lab, list)
• David Cunliffe (Lab, New Lynn)
• Lianne Dalziel (Lab, Christchurch East)
• Rod Donald (Greens, list)
• Brian Donnelly (NZ First, list)
• Helen Duncan (Labour, list)
• Ruth Dyson (Lab, Banks Peninsula)
• Ian Ewen-Street (Greens, list)
• Russell Fairbrother (Lab, Napier)
• Jeanette Fitzsimons (Greens, list)
• Martin Gallagher (Lab, Hamilton West)
• Phil Goff (Lab, Mt Roskill)
• Mark Gosche (Lab, Maungakiekie)
• Ann Hartley (Lab, Northcote)
• George Hawkins (Lab, Manurewa)
• Dave Hereora (Lab, list)
• Rodney Hide (ACT, list)
• Marian Hobbs (Lab, Wellington Central)
• Pete Hodgson (Lab, Dunedin North)
• Parekura Horomia (Lab, Ikaroa-Rawhiti)
• Darren Hughes (Lab, Otaki)
• Jonathan Hunt (Lab, list)
• Sue Kedgley (Greens, list)
• Annette King (Lab, Rongotai)
• Winnie Laban (Lab, Mana)
• Keith Locke (Greens, list)
• Janet Mackey (Lab, East Coast)
• Moana Mackey (Lab, list)
• Steve Maharey (Lab, Palmerston North)
• Nanaia Mahuta (Lab, Tainui)
• Trevor Mallard (Lab, Hutt South)
• Ron Mark (NZ First, list)
• Mahara Okeroa (Lab, Te Tai Tonga)
• David Parker (Lab, Otago)
• Mark Peck (Lab, Invercargill)
• Jill Pettis (Lab, Whanganui)
• Lynne Pillay (Lab, Waitakere)
• Richard Prebble (ACT, list)
• Katherine Rich (Nat, list)
• Mita Ririnui (Lab, Waiariki)
• Matt Robson (Prog C, list)
• Heather Roy (ACT, list)
• Dover Samuels (Lab, Te Tai Tokerau)
• Ken Shirley (ACT, list)
• Clem Simich (Nat, Tamaki)
• Jim Sutton (Lab, Aoraki)
• Paul Swain (Lab, Rimutaka)
• Nandor Tanczos (Greens, list)
• Judith Tizard (Lab, Auckland Central)
• Metiria Turei (Greens, list)
• Mike Ward (Greens, list)
• Margaret Wilson (Lab, list)
• Pansy Wong (Nat, list)
• Dianne Yates (Lab, list)

Noes: 55

• Paul Adams (UF, list)
• Marc Alexander (UF, list)
• Shane Ardern (Nat, Taranaki-King Country)
• Larry Baldock (United Future, list)
• Don Brash (Nat, list)
• Peter Brown (NZ First, list)
• Gerry Brownlee (Nat, Ilam)
• David Carter (Nat, list)
• John Carter (Nat, Northland)
• Brent Catchpole (NZ First, list)
• Deborah Coddington (ACT, list)
• Judith Collins (Nat, Clevedon)
• Brian Connell (Nat, Rakaia)
• Gordon Copeland (UF, list)
• Clayton Cosgrove (Lab, Waimakariri)
• Peter Dunne (UF, Ohariu-Belmont)
• Harry Duynhoven (Lab, New Plymouth)
• Gerrard Eckhoff (ACT, list)
• Bill English (Nat, Clutha-Southland)
• Taito Phillip Field (Lab, Mangere)
• Stephen Franks (ACT, list)
• Sandra Goudie (Nat, Coromandel)
• Bill Gudgeon (NZ First, list)
• Phil Heatley (Nat, Whangarei)
• Paul Hutchison (Nat, Port Waikato)
• Dail Jones (NZ First, list)
• John Key (Nat, Helensville)
• Wayne Mapp (Nat, North Shore)
• Murray McCully (Nat, Albany)
• Craig McNair (NZ First, list)
• Muriel Newman (ACT, list)
• Damien O'Connor (Lab, West Coast-Tasman)
• Bernie Ogilvy (UF, list)
• Pita Paraone (NZ First, list)
• Edwin Perry (NZ First, list)
• Jim Peters (NZ First, list)
• Winston Peters (NZ First, Tauranga)
• Simon Power (Nat, Rangitikei)
• Ross Robertson (Lab, Manukau East)
• Tony Ryall (Nat, Bay of Plenty)
• Lynda Scott (Nat, Kaikoura)
• Lockwood Smith (Nat, Rodney)
• Murray Smith (UF, list)
• Nick Smith (Nat, Nelson)
• Roger Sowry (Nat, list)
• Barbara Stewart (NZ First, list)
• John Tamihere (Lab, Tamaki Makarau)
• Georgina te Heuheu (Nat, list)
• Lindsay Tisch (Nat, Piako)
• Tariana Turia (Te Tai Hauauru)
• Judy Turner (UF, list)
• Kenneth Wang (ACT, list)
• Maurice Williamson (Nat, Pakuranga)
• Doug Woolerton (NZ First, list)
• Richard Worth (Nat, Epsom)

So ACT showed once again that it is not really a liberal party, while National turns out to be less liberal than NZFirst. I guess there's a reason Don Brash doesn't know of any queer National MPs...

David Benson-Pope's and Nandor Tanczos' speeches are also online. Benson-Pope recognises the centrality of relationships to people's lives and self-image, which makes discrimination in this area an extremely heavy burden. He also makes a forceful case for equality:

Saying no to civil unions is to say some relationships are "first class", but other loving, committed, stable relationships are for some inexplicable reason, of a lesser value.

Saying no to civil unions is to say some people deserve only the seats in the back of the bus.

Like Benson-Pope, I find this an intolerable proposition. There is no place in New Zealand for second-class citizenship.

Nandor likewise makes a strong case for equality, pluralism and state neutrality, but more interesting argues that opposition to the bill is driven in part by fear of losing control. The Dead White Males who currently run our society

see their dominance of our social and political forms slipping away... The increasing plurality of our society is scary for those who have always paddled in the mainstream. They have not yet understood - there no longer is a mainstream. We have become a braided river.

This fear also underlies opposition to Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed, to the Treaty process, to Immigration, and all the petty complaints about the increasing visibility and influence of non-white, non-males in our society. All of these issues are simply stalking horses for generational change - for a struggle of the young, with their vision of a pluralistic, independent and progressive New Zealand, and the old, too many of whom look back nostalgiacly to the "good old days" of the fifties, when Pakeha were unquestionably dominant and secure in their identity as British, and women and Maori knew their place. The problem for the old is that they are dying; History (or rather demographics) is on our side, and we will bury them - literally, in most cases.

...and uplifted

Ashraf Choudhary has decided to vote "yes" on the CUB. It's a very encouraging decision, and while it will no doubt draw heavy criticism from the Islamic community, it recognises a simple and fundamental truth: that human rights are indivisible, and the rights of any depend on the rights of all. Permitting discrimination against homosexuals undermines the rights of all of us to live our lives as we please, because our rights ultimately depend upon recognising the same right in others. Hobbes recognised this when he said that we should "be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself". Those wanting to deny rights to others that they would claim for themselves are breaking this fundamental bargain.

If you'd like to thank Choudhary, you can email him here.

What we're dealing with

The Campaign for Civil Unions has posted a list of quotes from submissions against the Civil Union Bill, which gives some idea of what we are dealing with. Passing the Bill will cause us to "sin as a nation", encourage "corruptions of the divine order", and "bring a curse on our land"; gays are "a blot on society, unhealthy, repugnant", "a burden to the state", and "worthy of death". These people are hateful, feral, and seemingly deeply disturbed (not to mention having a poor grasp of ethics). They're also obsessed with anal sex - as seen in this classic

the rectum is for excretion not for the wasting of sperm. Sperm is what produces children it was not created to flow up stream.

What next? Corruption of our precious bodily fluids?

If we really needed any proof of why religion has no place in public policy, then this is it. These people want everyone to live according to the dictates of their god, an idea whose stupidity was conclusively proven by the religious wars and massacres of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And they see the law as a way of achieving this. But the law does not exist to promote or enforce virtue - it exists to keep people from each other's throats so that they can find virtue for themselves.

Different religious beliefs are a fact. Different sexualities are a fact. Different ideals of the good life are a fact. The only way we can live together as one society without killing one another is to accept these facts, and establish a neutral framework that allows people as much freedom as possible to live their own lives, and denies the right of any tendency or ideology to use the state as a weapon against its enemies.

Reporting back

The Justice and Electoral Committee has issued its report on the Civil Union Bill [PDF], which opens the way for the Bill to be passed later this week. There have been a number of cosmetic changes - mostly changing terminology to more clearly seperate civil unions from marriage (CUs are no longer "solemnised", they are "entered into"; parties to a civil union are not "spouses" but "partners" - as well as one significant one: the recognition of foreign partnerships that are equivalent to a civil union (in much the same way as we recognise foreign marriages). There's also been a freeing up of the vows from the traditional "I AB take you CD..." to a clear statement by each party that names the other and acknowledges that they are freely joining in a civil union together. While Stephen Franks and Murray Smith objected to this as producing a "vacuum of purpose" at the heart of the bill, it simply acknowledges that the relationship is ultimately personal, and reflects this by allowing people far greater freedom to celebrate it in the manner of their choosing. The same trend can be seen in the growth of personalised vows in marriages (I can think of only one wedding I have been to which was not personalised in this manner), and while most personalised marriage vows are reminiscent of bad teenage poetry, it cannot be denied that they reflect the participant's wishes. And that is as it should be; the Civil Union Bill is on the right track here, and the Marriage Act should be amended to follow suit.

I'm quite disturbed by Franks' opposition in this area, especially as he also notes that the similar vacuum in the Marriage Act is fleshed out by custom. These are not the words of a man who thinks the state should leave people free to decide for themselves what their relationships look like; rather, he is advocating that these matters be dictated to people by law and tradition. It's a salutory reminder that despite its rhetoric, ACT is not a liberal party in any meaningful sense of the word. They do not care about freedom of speech. They do not care about human rights. And as seen here, they do not care about individual freedom and choice in the most central and personal aspects of our lives: our relationships.

The Bill is expected to go through its final stages on Thursday, so if you haven't already, email your MP and let them know what you think of it.

Liberalism and Civil Unions

Jordan has a good post on Civil Unions and our character as a liberal nation over at Just Left. He holds out a vision of New Zealand as the new home of freedom, which is one I wholeheartedly endorse, and one with a solid grounding in the new national identity we have defined for ourselves since the 80's (and which the Labour government is helping to define further).

Unfortunately he also buys into the "moral values" angst currently stalking American liberals, saying that:

The challenge facing liberals (who are both left- and right-wing) is to be much better at explaining the moral reasoning behind our positions. In the absence of strong moral claims about why what we support is right, we leave all the running on "morality" to the conservatives, and that is not ground any of us should be considering giving up.

The irony here is that we do have strong moral arguments for our positions. Civil Unions, like all liberal positions, are essentially about equality, freedom, and fairness:

• the equality of everyone before the law;
• the freedom of everyone to pursue their life without unnecessary interference by the state, or (in a positive sense) the freedom of everyone to enjoy a full human life;
• the recognition that current arrangements, which deny full equality and limit freedom on the grounds of sexual orientation, are unfair. Sexual orientation is not a morally relevant characteristic.

While diehard conservatives reject these values, the New Zealand public in general does not, and so they cannot be easily dismissed.

Liberals and civil unions

David Young argues that liberals are wrong to support the Civil Union Bill as it is a half-measure, and asks whether we will join a fight for full marriage and parental rights. To which my answer is "absolutely". I have made it clear from the beginning that I think Civil Unions do not go far enough and that we should simply amend the Marriage Act instead, but that under the circumstances progressives should grit their teeth, support progress now, and keep on fighting for true equality. As for parental rights, opposition to gay parents is nothing more than bigotry which equates homosexuality with paedophilia, or regards liberal attitudes towards sexual orientation as a parentally transmitted disease which must be stamped out. There's no good reason why gays shouldn't enjoy exactly the same parental rights as anybody else - including the right to adopt children. And when that battle comes up, I'll fight for it too.

Equal rights for all couples

Having previously railed against confusing the Civil Union and Relationships (Statutory References) Bills, Big News now seems happy to deliberately conflate them in the service of bigotry. Using the example of a lesbian couple who have been together for two months, he asks "should this couple have equal rights as married couples now, later, or not at all?", and points out that "Michael Cullen has said that the Civil Union legislation is designed to recognise those in long term relationships", not short-term ones. But what rights are acquired by de facto couples and when are questions about the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which have very little to do with civil unions or gays.

I've previously agreed that there are valid questions to be asked about the rights of de facto couples, and that in some cases a threshhold time (as used in the Property Relationships Act) may be appropriate. But what is absolutely clear is that a) the rules should be completely blind to the gender of a couple; and b) that the rights of de facto couples should (after some period of time) be substantively equal to those of married and civil unioned couples unless there is explicit "contracting out". Relationship rights do not come from god - they exist by virtue of the relationship and its implied consent. Marriage and civil unions simply make this consent explicit and concrete. If people don't want to have the ceremony and the piece of paper, that's fine - but it should not adversely affect their legal standing with respect to one another and the community as a whole.

Given the increased prelevance of de facto relationships, we would need the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill anyway to tidy up their legal situation (and some of this work has already been done in other legislation). And if it had not been coupled to the Civil Union Bill, I expect it would have been fairly uncontroversial (or no more controversial than the amendments to the Property Relationships Act). Unfortunately, because the two bills have been presented together, it is now being tarred by the religious right as a gay attack on the institution of marriage and attacked as a way of limiting the rights and status of civil unioned couples. We should not allow this to happen. While the bill itself may need tweaking, its goal of substantive equality for all couples is something that deserves support.

As for Big News, his obsession with gays and lesbians says more about him and his backward attitudes than it does about the bill in question.

Iona has a few thoughts on the sanctity of marriage and Dail Jones' anti-intellectualism...

Help with Civil Unions submissions

The Campaign for Civil Unions has released an information pack encouraging people to make submissions on the bills (downloadable PDF here). They're also running a series of regional workshops to help people with the process.

This is useful no matter how you feel about the bill, and I encourage everybody to download it and send something in.

Submit!

Now that everybody's got their submissions on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill out of the way, it's time for the next one. The Justice and Electoral Committee is soliciting submissions on both the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. 25 copies by Friday, 6th August to:

Helena Strange
Justice and Electoral Committee Secretariat
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

(No postage required)

A submission dosn't have to be complicated. It can be as simple as a letter saying "I support / oppose this bill" and why. There's an online guide to the process here.

Remember, it's participate or perish. If you don't advocate for your interests and in consequence get walked all over by people who do, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Express is right

Big News objects to Express's labelling of opponents of the Civil Unions Bill as homophobes.

Well, what else are we supposed to call them?

Opposition to the bill is rooted in the belief that gay relationships are inferior, and therefore undeserving of formal legal recognition. This is homophobia. It's an ugly word, but those who object to being tarred with it have a simple solution: don't be homophobes. It's that simple.

Post-vote thoughts

The Herald has a list of the ayes and nays on the Civil Unions Bill here.

People have commented that it looks grim; the prostitution bill got 86 votes on its first reading, and only passed by one, so if this has the same degree of falloff it will fail. Fortunately I think the core support is harder here - there probably won't be that many Labour MPs who are going to switch sides, and that plus the core liberal support from the Greens and Progressive Coalition gives a solid base of at least 50 votes to work from (plus probably 4 from ACT). The swingers are likely to be those 2 NZFirst and 5 National MPs, plus ACT's Stephen Franks and Gerry Eckhoff (who voted against prostitution refom, remember). These are the people to target.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased to see that ACT are acting more like a liberal party, and that Stephen Franks' illiberal attitude towards prostitution and flag-burning doesn't seem to extend to civil unions. But why the hell are Deborah Coddington and Muriel Newman even in the party? This is a matter of fundamental freedom and equality - the freedom to choose who you spend your life with, and to live with them free from unjustified discrimination from the state. It's also about people's freedom to choose their own social arrangements, rather than being subjected to government "social engineering". How can a member of ACT - a party which brands itself as the "party of freedom", and which ails constantly against "social engineering" - possibly oppose that?

I'm also pleased to see that Don Brash stuck to his principles and voted "for". I'm not fond of him, but at least he's a social liberal. Unlike most of the rest of his party. Jesus, where do they get those knuckle-draggers from? If we needed proof that National needed new blood so it could catch up with the rest of us and join the 21st century, we just got it today.

As for other opponents of the bill, I think that the bigotry and hatred displayed during the debate neatly proves Metiria Turei's point. When people start describing extending equality to others as an "abomination" or talking about the Imminent Demise Of Society As We Know It, then you know you're dealing with bigots and homophobes.

Other comments: Big News, David Farrar, Justleft, KiwPundit.

66-50

According to pointy-head radio, the Civil Unions Bill has passed its first reading by 66 to 50, and is off to select committee. I'll post a list of who voted for and against as soon as I find one.

While it's a victory, it's by a relatively narrow margin, and there's a long way to go yet. We need to keep the pressure up to ensure that those currently supporting it don't waver.

The accompanying Omnibus Bill is unlikely to be voted on until next week.

Crunch day

It's crunch day for the Civil Unions Bill. Parliament will vote later this afternoon on whether to send it forward to select committee, or whether to kill it dead. Stuff thinks the bill will pass, and they're probably right - with the votes that have been announced so far, there'd need to be an unusually high number of Labour defections for it to fail.

I'm disappointed to see that there are ACT MPs planning to vote against, though. For a supposedly liberal party, they have an awful lot of traditional social conservatives among the ranks...

If you're looking for people to lobby, try Maurice Williamson. He's undecided, but not sure whether gays should be treated the same as everybody else...

Update: OK, Williamson isn't undecided - he plans to vote against on the basis that "some gay couples want to be able to join heterosexual institutions such as marriage". So focus on asking him why they shouldn't be allowed to, and force him to examine his underlying assumptions.

Lobbying

With the Civil Unions Bill seeming much dicier than it did last week, supporters should pull out all the stops to make their voices heard. MP's email addresses can be found here; it is probably best to concentrate on those Labour MPs named in the story, and the ACT MPs who betrayed their supposedly liberal principles by voting against the Prostitution Reform Bill (if you need to know who voted against that Bill and is therefore likely to vote against this one, there is a full list here).

To save you some effort, here's a list of priority targets with email addresses already added. Just click on the link to send them an email.

• Clayton Cosgrove
• Harry Duynhoven
• Taito Phillip Field
• Janet Mackey
• Damien O'Connor
• Dover Samuels
• Paul Swain
• John Tamihere
• Gerrard Eckhoff
• Stephen Franks
• Donna Awatere Huata
• Muriel Newman
• Richard Prebble

I have no idea whether they actually listen to us, but its worth making the effort. So go off and make your voice heard!

Update: Simon Power is undecided. Email him as well.

Creepy distinctions and social engineering

In the post below, I mention the Maxim Institute drawing a distinction between "preferred" and "tolerated" relationships. I must admit that I find this distinction rather creepy - it smacks of the "social engineering" the Maxim Institute so decries.

As a liberal, I believe that the government should not be preferring or legally privileging any relationship between consenting adults. It should not be trying to use the law to "guide" people into particular social arrangements. These matters are for individuals to decide, not the government; the latter should step back, provide a neutral legal framework, and leave people to choose their own social arrangements. Anything more is theocracy - or, as Lyndon Hood put it:

[T]he further the goals of government get from the material wellbeing of its people, the closer it gets to the gas chambers. Trying to make people behave according to particular moral standards is the spiritual equivalent of making the Trains Run on Time

The Civil Unions and "Omnibus" bills may not take us all the way, but they're an enormous step in the right direction - away from government social engineering and towards a truly neutral, secular and liberal state.