Spineless

Yesterday was the Big Gay Out in Auckland, an annual celebration of Auckland's gay community. This being an election year, the politicians were out in force - which led to this odd exchange:

Radio host Steven Oats invited [Prime Minister John] Key to his stall and asked him whether he would support civil unions if a conscience vote were held tomorrow.

"I voted against it last time. It was a very marginal call. But we're not going to face that again, so ..."

Mr Oats persisted, but Mr Key would not reveal his cards.

"I'm leaving it until my book. I know the answer, but just wait until my book," he said.

Come on John, tell us what you really think!

This is utterly, absolutely spineless. Key is Prime Minister of New Zealand. He's accountable to us for his political views. And yet he's too chickenshit to say what they actually are for fear of offending someone (either his wealthy donors, who tend to be old and bigoted, or ordinary decent members of the public, who think homophobia just isn't acceptable anymore). And then to add insult to injury, he effectively demands to be paid at some stage in the future for information he should be giving out as part of basic, democratic accountability.

But then, this has been Key's problem all along: no principles. A desire to be everyone's mate, and to achieve that by telling everyone exactly what they want to hear. But this is not an issue he can be everyone's mate on. He can either do what is right, or what is wrong. Us or the bigots, Mr Key - pick a side.

What the bigots are afraid of

New England's sudden move for marriage equality has the bigots running scared. So what are they afraid of? This:

Since that day, four other states - Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa, Vermont and Maine this year - have legalized same-sex marriage, and more may follow soon. A measure just approved by New Hampshire's legislature awaits the governor's decision on whether to sign. But Massachusetts was the first, providing a five-year record with which to gauge the consequences.

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot - protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

Why? Because the sky hasn't fallen. Contrary to the dire predictions of homophobic bigots, there has not been sodomy in the streets. Nor has there been a move to legalise bestiality or paedophilia. Instead, ordinary people have got married and got on with their ordinary lives - proving in the process just how ordinary homosexuality is. And that, more than anything else, is what they are really afraid of - the mundane evidence which shows their hate and fear and bigotry for what it is.

It will happen here too. It's been nearly five years since we passed the Civil Union Act 2004, and as with Massachusetts, the sky hasn't fallen. Which means that in three to five years time, when we follow in Sweden's footsteps and introduce a bill allowing full same-sex marriage rather than just leaving people in the half-way house of "separate but equal" (which isn't), it will pass without too much controversy.

Rudd sides with the bigots

Whenever I look at Australian politics, I'm constantly reminded that the Australian Labor Party is neither as progressive or liberal as its New Zealand equivalent. I've had another such reminder today, with Kevin Rudd categorically ruling out any move to introduce civil unions in Australia. His reason? American-style bigotry:

The Government’s response equated the proposal with same-sex marriage equality, saying the no gay unions policy "reflects the widely held view in the community that marriage is between a man and a woman".

The furtherest they'll go is to officially recognise gay de facto couples. And this in a country which has not yet outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at a federal level.

Civil unions are not full equality - they are "separate but equal", which never is. At the same time, they are a marked improvement, and a step on the road to full equality. Rejecting even this half-measure is the sign of a party - and a country - which is still deeply bigoted, and does not yet accept the fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such. We expect that from the right; to see it from the left is deeply troubling.

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.

Retribution

With the second reading vote out of the way, talk is now turning towards political retribution against those MPs who betrayed their party's values to vote for inequality and homophobia. JustLeft expresses his displeasure with Labour's errant "boy's club":

the Labour MPs who voted against - John Tamihere, Ross Robertson, Harry Duynhoven, Clayton Cosgrove, Taito Phillip Field and Damien O'Connor - all I will say is they are very lucky they don't depend on the Labour Party list for their election. I am ashamed that they have "Labour" attached to their names. To vote against this legislation indicates their values base is not Labour's.

Unfortunately, many of these MPs have large majorities and therefore cannot be effectively harmed by Labour. But they can be challenged from outside Labour, and I would hope that those parties to the left of Labour will put up strong challengers in these people's electotorates and draw attention to their consistent illiberal voting patterns.

KiwPundit is also talking retribution, threatening before the vote that

ACT MPs who vote against should be prepared for a nasty surprise when the next list selection is done. The ACT Board is quite a lot more socially liberal than the caucus

and now promising to "get even - or at least try". And on Rodney Hide's blog, he goes further:

In the next list selection, the Board needs to take out the trash, namely: Franks, Newman, Coddington, Eckhoff and Wang.

I am not going to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on another election campaign to help increase ACT’s share of the party vote, only to have crap like this happen.

Rodney, please publicly announce what you are going to do to fix these five problems.

I look forward to this. Unlike their Labour comrades, ACT's traitors are vulnerable; on current polling, they would only get three or four MPs, and even if they make 5%, they would still only get six. With nine current MPs, someone is going to lose out, and I'd like it to be the right people; here's hoping Nigel is successful.

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.