Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Soapbox 0050: Queering the pitch

Queering the pitch

Matthew Thomas

Soapbox 0050

You may not have noticed it, but a minor feud has been running on Scoop lately about the rights of same-sex couples.

The argument started, unsurprisingly, with a statement from Graham Capill, leader of the Christian Heritage Party. On Tuesday, he expressed his distaste for the idea of homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children. And he decried as a `lack of moral leadership' the support of both Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark for the legalization of such adoptions.

Mr Capill went on to suggest that same-sex couples adopting children would `destroy the traditional family unit'. Quite how this would happen he didn't make clear, and nor did he explain why destroying the traditional family unit would necessarily be a bad thing.

But it is the rest of Mr Capill's statement which is the most invidious. He gave the Hero Parade a ritualistic boot, and then said that Shipley and Clark have been `endorsing promotion of degeneracy'. The obvious implication here is that homosexuality can be classified as `degeneracy'; which not only implies that all homosexuals were once heterosexuals (before they `degenerated', so to speak), but also that homosexuality is worse than heterosexuality.

Here Mr Capill is on very sticky ground, and he knows it. It's been a long time since homosexuality was decriminalized, and that move isn't likely to be reversed any time soon. What's more, since 1993 the Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But, you might well ask, how could Mr Capill possibly have any other view, when the Bible is quite clear on the matter that homosexuality is evil?

Well I'm not a Biblical scholar, but the Bible's apparently clear criticism of homosexuality may not be all that it appears. Indeed, there's a compelling case for arguing that the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts criticized homosexual prostitution and rape, not homosexuality itself, and that these passages were misinterpreted -- either accidentally or deliberately -- by later translators.

Presbyterian minister David Clark, for one, is of the view that homosexuals should be accepted in the community. Mr Clark said in Scoop on Wednesday that `Jesus was condemned by loud religious voices for welcoming all people; if we are condemned for accepting gay and lesbian people on equal terms, then so be it'. And the Labour Party's homosexual/bisexual/transsexual branch, Rainbow Labour, also weighed in, saying that Graham Capill's reaction was `the sign of a desperate man'.

But this is a side issue, really, from the original question of whether same-sex and other de facto couples should be allowed to adopt children. Personally, I'm annoyed that these two groups are being lumped together. While I think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, I would think that Mr Capill is quite right to oppose de facto couples' claimed right to do the same.

I don't have much sympathy for de facto couples seeking the same sort of rights as those enjoyed by married couples. For all intents and purposes, marriage in New Zealand is much more of a civil and legal institution than a religious one. In return for enduring the legal constraints of marriage, married couples receive privileges -- such as higher student allowances, for example, and the right to adopt children. De facto couples, as far as I can make out, are wanting the privileges without abiding by the constraints. And I don't see why this is justified.

But this position of mine has one major inconsistency: same-sex couples are always de facto couples, for the simple reason that they cannot be legally married in New Zealand. If you accept that homosexuality is legitimate, this restriction on their getting married doesn't make any sense, but it seems the New Zealand voting public still isn't comfortable with the idea of same-sex couples enjoying any legal status.

For this reason, I am pleased to see Helen Clark and Jenny Shipley reportedly expressing their support for the legalization of same-sex marriages. What Mr Capill sees as a `lack of moral leadership', I would see as an excellent display of moral leadership from both leaders. But, unfortunately, that doesn't mean the idea will fly with the public for a number of years yet. In the meantime, Mr Capill and others like him will no doubt continue their anti-homosexual crusade.

Three years ago, Graham Capill was co-leader of the Christian Coalition, which only just failed to get the five percent of the party vote it needed to get into Parliament. During one of the leaders' debates on TV1, interviewer Ian Fraser suggested to Mr Capill that the absence of any mention of homosexuality from the Coalition's manifesto only showed that they were `too clever to mention it'. Mr Capill couldn't help but quip, `Perhaps we are'. In those three words, I believe, the Coalition lost the votes it needed to get into Parliament. And personally, I'm pleased to see that Mr Capill hasn't learned his lesson.


Copyright (C) 1999 Matthew Thomas (mpt @ mailandnews . com).


Related Scoop stories

Related sites (external sites are not endorsed by Scoop)


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Julian Assange: A Thousand Days In Belmarsh
Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days. On the occasion of his 1,000th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: The Mauling Of Novak Djokovic
Rarely can the treatment of a grand sporting figure by officialdom have caused such consternation. Novak Djokovic, the tennis World Number One, has always had a tendency to get under skin and constitution, creating a large following of admirers and detractors. But his current treatment by Australian authorities, and his subsequent detention as an unlawful arrival despite being granted a visa to participate in the Australian Open, had the hallmarks of oppression and incompetent vulgarity... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Voices Of Concern: Aussies For Assange’s Return

With Julian Assange now fighting the next stage of efforts to extradite him to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 of which are based on the brutal, archaic Espionage Act, some Australian politicians have found their voice. It might be said that a few have even found their conscience... More>>



Forbidden Parties: Boris Johnson’s Law On Illegal Covid Gatherings

It was meant to be time to reflect. The eager arms of a new pandemic were enfolding a society with asphyxiating, lethal effect. Public health authorities advocated various measures: social distancing, limited contact between family and friends, limited mobility. No grand booze-ups. No large parties. No bonking, except within dispensations of intimacy and various “bubble” arrangements. Certainly, no orgies... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Question Time Is Anything But
The focus placed on the first couple of Question Time exchanges between the new leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister will have seemed excessive to many but the most seasoned Parliamentary observers. Most people, especially those outside the Wellington beltway, imagine Question Time is exactly what it sounds... More>>



Gasbagging In Glasgow: COP26 And Phasing Down Coal

Words can provide sharp traps, fettering language and caging definitions. They can also speak to freedom of action and permissiveness. At COP26, that permissiveness was all the more present in the haggling ahead of what would become the Glasgow Climate Pact... More>>