The Civil Unions Bill
The Civil Unions Bill has been in the news recently, not least because of the “Enough is Enoughâ€? march that happened recently. Here’s some of my thinking about it.
[Eek. Nathan posted “Fascismâ€? while I was writing this, so I’ll try not to cover too much of the same ground.]
For those of my readers not in New Zealand, the Civil Unions Bill is effectively a compromise bill aimed at giving homosexual and de facto couples the legal rights and protections of marriage, without either the label or the social and religious significance of marriage.
Marriage
One of the main arguments (possibly *the* main argument) against the Civil Unions Bill is that it undermines the sanctity of marriage. This argument generally takes one of two forms:
-
That a Civil Union is marriage without the commitment; or that it’s a way of getting the privileges of marriage without the responsibility. This argument is based on a pretty optimistic, perhaps even naïve view of marriage in its current state. In 1999 there were 21,085 marriages, and 9,936 divorces (Marriages and Divorces: Statistics NZ). By 2001, 38% of marriages were lasting less than 10 years (Advice on Divorce Rates).
It is also important to note that a Civil Union is not marriage, even in effect. The Civil Unions Bill acknowledges the religious and social tradition behind marriage, and does not ask for those elements.
-
The second argument is that it allows homosexuals to “marry� (see point 1; a civil union is not marriage). Many see this as, to quote a well-known Christian leader, “perverted and unnatural.� I do not want to argue this; as Nathan said in the referenced post, I do not see gays as inherently more sinful than myself. I would merely point again at point 1: a civil union is not a marriage.
Free Choice
I believe that God gives us free choice. I believe, in fact, that God gives every human being free choice. If God gives free choice, shouldn’t we honour that? Let me explain further.
We live in a plural culture. Others believe completely different things to what I believe, and I believe completely different things to what others believe. If I expect to have my beliefs (and the choices coming out of those beliefs) respected, I must be willing to extend the same respect to others regarding their beliefs and choices. I look at it this way: if the shoe were on the other foot, and gay or de facto ‘marriage’ was the norm, I would expect my country to respect my desire for a different form, one that reflected my social and religious beliefs. And if homosexuality was the norm (ignoring questions of right, wrong, and practicality for now), I would hope that my country would honour my desire for heterosexual marriage.
I don’t believe I have any right to deny people from making their own choices. Nathan drew attention to everyone having a voice under the democratic process, which is a good point, but I think we need to evaluate things beyond our own preference (whether moral, ethical, or otherwise). I believe that it is unfair that gays, and those who choose not to have a traditional marriage cannot have their long-term committed relationships recognised as such by the government, and thus miss out on the legal rights and protections afforded by marriage.
Justice or Morality?
This is not actually a morality issue; we are not defining right and wrong, and we cannot dictate others’ choices. I see this as a justice issue, and I think the *just* thing in the circumstances is to acknowledge that people who cannot or do not “marryâ€? can still have long-term committed relationships largely equivalent to marriage. The Civil Unions Bill acknowledges this. Let’s encourage justice.
More Reading
This post and this much briefer one (from a baptist pastor no less) helped me form and clarify my thinking a lot. Be sure to have a look at the Civil Unions website too.
Comment by Nato • Fri 27 Aug 04, 12:34 pm #
I know what you mean - I had two posts coming out before my one.
Hehe… commenting on your use of statistics here: (I minor point I know)
The fact that 38% of marriages last less than ten years does not mean that 38% of people are going to have a current marriage of less than ten years in length. People having marriages of ten years or less are probably going to have about three times as many marriages as those having life-long marriages. So, short marriages are over-represented in the statistics.
Just with regard to what you are saying, do you think it is best for NZ that this bill goes ahead? It sounds good to give people free choice, but what if people will choose what is bad for them, and perhaps(thus) bad for society? What I want to know is where you draw the line between something like pedophillia and this? (And I’m not saying anything about their relative status, I’m just interested as to where you draw the line.)
Comment by Andrew • Fri 27 Aug 04, 12:49 pm #
Matt, I agree with you. To answer Nath’s questions respectively:
Yes I think it is best the bill goes ahead;
Of course people will choose what is bad for them, they always do… but I’m not sure how that query is relevant to the Civil Unions bill. I can’t see how the bill is “bad for society”;
Children are not equipped to make reponsible sexual decisions as recognised by the current 16+ law.
And to ask a question myself: What does the law say at the moment with regard to same sex couples adopting and raising children, and does the Civil Unions bill change that in any way? Because that would be something I am against as bad.
Comment by Matt • Fri 27 Aug 04, 12:53 pm #
I think the pedophilia argument is a bit of a straw man; our culture, and most others in the history of the world, are pretty unequivocal that children cannot make certain decisions until they reach a certain age. Marriage, Civil Unions, even sexual relationships all depend on the idea of “consenting adults;” that is, both parties are adult (of a certain age/maturity) and both want the same thing. Pedophilia is then not an issue, because it cannot be between consenting adults.
This, obviously, signals my disagreement with the case for lowering the legal age for sex, which I see as a very dangerous thing.
And yes, while I’m still not 100% sure, I do support this bill. I think it is an effective compromise, and one that still respects the rights of people to choose.
Comment by Nato • Fri 27 Aug 04, 3:39 pm #
Matt, In some cultures don’t young girls get married off at a ridiculously young age?
Anyhow, pedophillia was only one example - what about the german guy who killed a (consenting) person, and ate him? What about sucide? Or incest?
In these, all parties are consenting, yet something isn’t quite right. How would you explain why these are wrong?
I’d agree that you don’t want to restrict choice, but where do you draw the line? The line of consent just doesn’t do it. Do we let people have the free will to kill others? It is the very nature of the Law to restrict rights.
How can the bill be bad for society? Well, for one, if its bad for some people, and it encourages people to be involved in it, isn’t this ultimately for society in general?
Andrew, According to what I understand of the Civil Union Bill, Civil Unions Replace Marriages Legally, so someone in a Civil Union would be allowed to adopt a kid.
Comment by Andrew • Fri 27 Aug 04, 7:27 pm #
I would be against anything allowing same sex couples to adopt children, on the grounds that I understand it to be well established that children develop best where they have role models of both sexes as their parents and their development is impaired by the lack of a father or a mother in single-parent situations (which would be what the same-sex situation is effectively)… but you’d know more about that than me Nathan, so I’d be interested in your comments on that line of reasoning: Am I right?
To answer your “why is this different to other crimes” question:
It’s already legal for same sex people to engage in sexual activities. The Civil Unions bill is not legalising that. You might have a case that we should make homosexual behaviour illegal. But in the other cases you cite it is the act of making the sin legal that the issue is arising with. A civil union is not making the sin legal at all: It already is legal. The civil union is taking an already legal activity, which already happens, and making it somewhat more decent and moral and legally recognising what is already taking place.
Comment by Matt • Fri 27 Aug 04, 7:39 pm #
From the bill:
It seems safe enough to me… it looks like we’ll need to keep an eye on the Care of Children Bill and the Adoption Act though.
Comment by Angus • Sat 28 Aug 04, 12:52 am #
I don’t quite appreciate the basis of the paedophilia argument, especially given the frequency with which it’s raised in discussions of the CUB.
No-one is seriously advocating paedophilia; the CUB will have no effect on a practise that is and should always remain illegal. I concur with Matt in the sense that it’s a straw man argument, as is that cannibalism issue.
Opponents of the CUB should debate it on issues to which it applies (gay couples and children? same-sex civil unions versus marriages?) than hot-button issues, like paedophilia, raised solely to twist the frame of debate.
Comment by Nato • Mon 30 Aug 04, 12:06 pm #
Just with regard to me bringing up examples of shocking crimes, my intention was to draw to attention the fact that the concept consent fails as something that is sufficent to define morality.
I didn’t intend on saying ‘gays are as bad as paedophiles’, nor did I attempt to use hot-button issues to bring excess emotion into the argument. I selected the issues I did because (a) they are pretty much universally seen as wrong and (b) the parties involved can sometimes be consenting.
Anyhow, Andrew has mentioned that Gay sexual activity is legal, thus gay civil unions is not really an issue of morality, to which I don’t have an argument against.
With regards to the adoption of kids, I think it will only be a matter of time before they get to have kids. “They can get civil unionised, why can’t they adopt?” “So you’re saying that I can’t have kids just because I’m gay? - bringing up kids is a human right!”
Comment by Andrew • Mon 30 Aug 04, 12:54 pm #
Well, my normal unpolitical can’t-be-bothered-getting-off-my-butt self would be marching half way to parliament in protest were they to try to allow gay couples to adopt kids. While they might show gays crying on TV who have been deprived of their “rights” to adopt kids, we’d have an equally potent media weapon: Everyone’s love of kids. As long as protesters focused on the “Research has shown it’s bad for the kids. You don’t want to hurt the poor kids do you? If they really loved kids, they would love them enough to not adopt them for this reason! Bringing up kids is a responsibility not a right: The child’s welfare is paramount.” (Repeat ad nauseum) they wouldn’t have a chance! ;)
All you need is Holmes to do one of his sob-stories showing pictures of cute kids, soppy music playing, a women crying “won’t someone pleeeease think of the children” (think Simpsons), and a psychologist saying “Research has shown conclusively that…” and you’d be home and host.
Of course whether the media would co-operate, or whether they would depict any protesters as “anti-gay bigoted hate-filled hitler-following Christians” is another matter…
Comment by michelle • Tue 31 Aug 04, 3:35 pm #
i dont know whether ive come in to this conversation too late to have much of a say but…
i battled for ages about whether it was inethical to not give Homosexuals the same marriage rights as straight people.. but i’ve managed to come to this conclusion:
It depends what your countries laws are based on.
For example, American Laws are (mostly) based on Christianity. So… God has said homosexuality is wrong, this meaning homosexual marriages should not be legal.
God has said stealing is wrong, so people who steal will be punished.
God has said lying and cheating is wrong, so there are penalties in place for both of those.
So how come we make laws to prevent every area that is against God, except for the area of sexuality?
We will prevent murder, lying, stealing, adultery, abortion, but we will give the go-ahead to gays.
Its all sin.
So even though this country is not a christian country, how come we hold to some areas of Christian laws but not others?
dont know if that makes sense, but i think this bill is just another step to erroding all moral fibre from our society.
there are plenty of other things that need to be addressed before gay marriage is addressed.
Comment by Matt • Tue 31 Aug 04, 11:12 pm #
No, you’re not too late at all =)
The whole “we’re founded on Christian values” thing is a bit of a curly one. I think the biggest problem with it is that things change. As a result, there are still some values in common (e.g. murder and theft are bad) but others become a bit more plural — not everyone holds the same opinion about cheating or lying, for instance.
Where you said:
Actually, we (as a country) don’t do anything to prevent abortion, adultery or lying (as long as it’s not in court or “official”) — and even stealing is not necessarily illegal at the big-business level. I think there are a large number of ways in which our country (and the “Christian” U.S. as well) are deviating from the original principles.
But while this is something I lament, I don’t think it’s right for a largely non-Christian country to be directed by a set of values the majority doesn’t hold. I think that what we are seeing now (with the CUB) is a shift in those majority values, and we need to be aware of what that signifies. Our country is getting less, not more, Christian.
Comment by michelle • Wed 1 Sep 04, 10:04 pm #
yeah, i know =( i was talking about American when i wrote about that bit…
not that they’re fully to be admired… i guess im just pleased that they still have a president who calls himself a Christian and tries to uphold Christian laws.
I actually submitted a (oh heck, its late and my brains not working) submission? against the civil unions bill… so at least im backing up my opposition rather than just saying empty words. I guess thats the important part :):)
Comment by Marcus • Mon 6 Sep 04, 2:21 pm #
I’m afraid that I disagree with your post Matt. This issue isn’t about justice and free choice or about right and wrong, it’s about rewarding beneficial behaviour.
In New Zealand, we do not allow minors (ie under 18) to buy alcohol or to gamble. In passing these laws, the government is treating minors differently to others - they are not given the same rights based solely on their age. Why does the government decide to do this?….. because to allow children to buy alcohol or to gamble would surely have a number of negative consequences for society. While certain minors would be responsible enough to buy alcohol, the majority wouldn’t.
In this situation, the law distinguishes between groups of people based on the age. But do we call this discrimination, the answer clearly is no.
The same reasoning must be used when determining whether the Civil Union Bills should be passed - is it justified to distinguish between marriage and other relationships?
In my opinion the government is justified in distinguishing marriage from other relationships and providing incentives to married couples as opposed to other forms of relationships.
Thousands of studies worldwide show that marriage offers benefits to society no other relationship can provide. To provide these benefits to other forms of relationships devalues marriage in our society.
Matt you say “I believe that it is unfair that gays, and those who choose not to have a traditional marriage cannot have their long-term committed relationships recognised as such by the government, and thus miss out on the legal rights and protections afforded by marriage.” Why should these other forms of relationships be given the same benefits as marriage, when research shows so clearly that these other forms are nowhere near as beneficial for society?
Sorry for the long post - as you can tell it is something that I feel pretty strongly about.
Comment by michelle • Wed 8 Sep 04, 10:21 am #
Hey thats a really good comment, Marcus… nice :) gives a bit more backing to the issue. Sometimes it just feels like im opposing it because i’m christian and God has given us guidelines…
but its good to have other backing :)
That was what i liked about our Church when many of us sat down and wrote submissions - that we had statistics, etc, in front of us showing us the negative effects of defacto and homosexual relationships on others in society, and on their children.
I guess its good that we’re all debating about it, though, rather than just accepting or not accepting everything that goes on :)