COMMENT
Herald columnist Garth George says the Civil Union Bill will be "destructive of the very foundations of society as we know it". His cry is reminiscent of Chicken Little being hit on the head by an acorn and concluding that the sky was falling in on her.
The sky will not
fall if the Civil Union Bill is passed. What the bill does is recognise the diversity of relationships today. Under the bill, both heterosexual and same-sex couples will be able to affirm their commitment to each other in front of friends and family, and have the law recognise that commitment.
At the moment, same-sex couples are not able to do this. The law turns a blind eye to the many thousands of gays and lesbians in relationships. It not only unjustifiably discriminates but sends the message that lesbians and gays are second-class citizens.
An institution of civil union will address this unjustified discrimination. It shouldn't matter whether the law discriminates against 100 people or 100,000. Discrimination is insidious. It strikes at the heart of our concepts of equality and fairness. The Civil Union Bill will mean that for the first time gay and lesbian relationships are formally recognised by the law.
In addition to addressing this discrimination, the bill will also have positive social effects.
First, any institution that reinforces a couple's commitment to each other and promotes the stability of their relationship must be good for society. We should be promoting more commitment and stability, not less.
Second, many same-sex couples can and do have children. Any means by which the parents' relationships is maintained and strengthened can only be good for the children.
Third, the bill will send the message that gays and lesbians are not second-class citizens. The Relationships Bill will address part of this by removing some instances of discrimination.
But the Civil Union Bill is also needed. The public commitment, celebration and endorsement of relationships is socially important.
The Civil Union Bill will provide for an institution in which gays and lesbians will be able to share in this.
George criticises supporters of the bill as being short on evidence and long on supposition but then baldly asserts, without any evidence, that the bill is hugely unpopular.
In fact, recent polls suggest that a majority of New Zealanders support civil unions. There is also strong empirical evidence in support of the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
In July, the American Psychological Association reviewed all relevant research and concluded that "denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of gay and lesbian individuals". The association is the world's largest one of psychologists with a membership of more than 150,000.
The Civil Union Bill does not go this far and recognise same-sex marriage. Rather, it is a practical, moderate response to the current unjustified discrimination in the law.
George says that, for him, this is a physical rather than a moral issue. Marriage, he says, is an institution confined to a man and a woman. This objection to civil unions is specious - there is no proposal to allow same-sex couples to marry. The definition of marriage will remain intact. But his objection also assumes that the meaning of marriage has been forever static.
His is the same argument that was used in opposition to allowing married women to have their own legal identity, and against allowing blacks and whites to marry each other.
In both cases, opponents said that the traditional meaning of marriage meant that married women had no legal identity, and that only members of the same race could marry. And in both cases, scripture was quoted in support of this traditional meaning.
The meaning of marriage is not static. It is what we as a society decide to make of it.
The proposal is moderate and it does not change the meaning of marriage. Rather, it introduces a new institution of civil unions to address unjustified discrimination.
George concludes by claiming that the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation in a structured environment.
But if marriage is all about procreation, as he suggests, why do we allow infertile couples, women past menopause or people on their deathbed to marry?
We haven't seen a campaign by George to prevent these people from marrying. Why target only gays and lesbians?
The sky will not fall down if the Civil Union Bill is passed. In fact, the acorns only seem to have started falling in the past two months.
On June 24, George wrote that he thought the bill was a "good idea".
It remains a good idea, both for same-sex couples and for all New Zealanders.
* David Friar is an Auckland lawyer and former Fulbright scholar.
Herald Feature: Civil Unions
Related information
Opinion
COMMENT
Herald columnist Garth George says the Civil Union Bill will be "destructive of the very foundations of society as we know it". His cry is reminiscent of Chicken Little being hit on the head by an acorn and concluding that the sky was falling in on her.
The sky will not
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.