Scott McMurray: Kids' wellbeing must come first

COMMENT

Former Miss New Zealand Sharee Adams hit the nail on the head. The Civil Union and Relationships Bills, if passed, will have a huge impact on the next generation.

The message they send will profoundly influence the way children think about their partners and their responsibility to their own children. Marriage as a foundational social institution is at stake.

The debate so far has been about the present generation by the present generation. Adults' rights have been the focus, without considering the needs of children.

Advocates pushing the bills say they are about human rights and removing discrimination. But a close analysis reveals that unjust discriminations commonly cited to support the bills don't exist in law or practice.

For example, same-sex and de facto couples can already be named next-of-kin and have the same rights as married couples to visit their sick partners in hospital.

As well, New Zealand law already protects and recognises de facto and same-sex couples in key areas such as wills and estate; relationships property; parental leave and employment; domestic violence; ACC compensation; child support and numerous others.

This is dishonest legislation and the New Zealand public is being misled by empty politically correct slogans.

Civil unions are virtually identical to marriage and everyone knows it. The only difference is the title on the certificate and fact that you don't need a man and a woman. Promoters claim it is a right to have committed relationships recognised.

But this isn't the role of law. If it is, why are so many other loving and committed relationships missing out?

The recognition argument is also deceptive because it ignores the companion Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which will grant de facto and same-sex couples legal equivalence with marriage.

The Relationships Bill is the most pernicious. The Government's stated objective for this bill is the creation of neutral relationship laws. It systematically amends more than 100 acts to treat married, de facto and same-sex couples the same.

In the process it disregards a de facto couple's choice not to marry.

Are we seriously prepared to neutralise marriage and pretend there isn't any difference between married, de facto and same-sex relationships? De facto couples have not made a life-long public commitment to each other; partners can separate one week and start a new relationship the next. And same-sex couples cannot both create and nurture children.

It is common sense to make distinctions in law between relationships that are different. Marriage is given special legal status because it is a public good. Its benefits include social stability; creation and nurture of children; presence of a mother and father; wealth creation; and intergenerational connection. Significantly, evidence overwhelmingly shows that kids do best when they are raised by their married mother and father.

Marriage is not perfect. Some marriages crash and so do motor cars. But we don't give up on cars. We make them safer and stronger and encourage people to become better drivers.

The underlying purpose of these bills is to endorse same-sex relationships and grant them equivalence with a married man and woman. This sends the message that the differences between them are of no consequence to children.

And that is the critical issue. Is it in children's best interests to endorse the creation of family arrangements where they won't have either a mum or a dad?

Civil unions will only further entrench the fallacy that mothers and fathers don't really matter to kids; that marriage isn't really that important. Tell that to a generation long enough and they will believe it, and then they will live it out.

These bills will profoundly change our social ecology. Parliament must decide if it is prepared to gamble with our children's future to satisfy the desires of a few adults.