Celebrating 25 Years of Scoop
Special: Up To 25% Off Scoop Pro Learn More

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search


Civil Union Bill Injures "The Public Good"

New article on www.civil-unions.org


There are no discernable calls in New Zealand from significant numbers of heterosexual couples living in de facto relationships for civil unions as the promoters of the Civil Union Bill falsely claim, as they already have a means of legally registering their relationships: it is called marriage. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy, provides a way for males and females to build a life together and assures every child has a mother and a father. There never has been a culture that made homosexual marriage or unions part of its family model.

The call for civil unions is driven by homosexuals and lesbians who want their same-sex relationships given state approval so they can gain special "rights" based on a sexual lifestyle choice; one that involves sexual perversion and immoral behaviour and the bringing up of children in an environment where they are denied either a biological father or biological mother who is committed to their respective husband or wife. If civil unions become law children will be denied their rights to have both a mother and a father through the deliberate state-sanctioned promotion of sexual perversion and immorality.

It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow the benefit of a father and a mother on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination. Children truly need both a father and a mother. It is cruel to intentionally deny them this. A homosexual man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two "gay" dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mum, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

At present New Zealand law does not allow same-sex couples, de facto heterosexual couples or single people to adopt children. This is to safeguard the rights of children to have both a mother and a father. However, one of the clear goals for homosexual and lesbian activists pushing for civil unions, is to enable same-sex couples in civil unions to be able to adopt children. Once civil unions are made legal they have made it clear they will push for the necessary changes to the adoption laws to achieve their goal. Already, through in-vitro-fertilisation (involving sperm donors), lesbian couples are obtaining children and raising them in fatherless households. Homosexual men are raising children in motherless households by using a woman with whom they cannot ever have a natural marital relationship while practicing homosexuality.

The Care of Children Bill, which recently passed into law by a slim majority of 62-58 votes, allows the lesbian co-partner of a child conceived by artificial insemination to acquire full guardianship rights, provided both partners have agreed to the insemination procedure. The new law allows lesbian and homosexual parents to obtain custody and access orders. It also allows a lesbian co-partner to gain guardianship rights over her partner’s child within one year of being in the lesbian relationship, while it takes three years being in the relationship for them to obtain any rights to joint relationship property! (e.g. a double bed or jointly-owned sex toys).

A marriage in New Zealand can only be officiated by a Court registrar or by a licensed celebrant who can be of the couple’s own choice and can be carried out without any reference to religion. All a Court registrar or marriage celebrant is required to do under New Zealand law before declaring a couple who are entitled to get married, to be "married", is to ensure three things take place in their presence: (1) the male must say to the woman "I take you to be my wife" or words to that effect, (2) the woman must say to the man "I take you to be my husband" or words to that effect; and (3) both declarations must be made before and heard by at least one witness present with the celebrant at the time of solemnisation. The signing of the marriage registrar and issuing of marriage certificates which must be supplied to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, complete the main post-marriage legal requirements and provide proof in law that the couple are married.

The core driving force behind civil unions are so-called "gay" activists, many of who claim they are discriminated against as a "class of persons" because they cannot get legal recognition of their same-sex relationships. However, a true "class of persons" cannot be defined in terms of "sexual orientation" when it comes to laying claim in a positive sense to civil rights, as the distinguishing or defining mark of a homosexual or lesbian person has not been proven to be based on any intrinsic biological factor such as gender, race or skin colour. There has been no definitive scientific evidence produced that proves that homosexual or lesbian "sexual orientation" is determined by biological factors. Scientists understand that homosexuality is rooted in a collection of biological, psychological and social factors.

However, in the negative sense the rights to be protected from unlawful discrimination do apply under the Human Rights Act 1993 to a person defined on the basis of his or her "sexual orientation" (see s. 21(m) of the Act). The rights relate to matters such as access to accommodation, public places etc. and are based on the common humanity we all share as human beings. It is noteworthy that the Act does not protect "gays" from exclusion from marriage or same-sex relationship recognition by the state. This exclusion is allowable in law, as it is not an example of unjust discrimination against a class of persons. Marriage is by definition only open to opposite-sex persons because by its very nature it is limited in this way: marriage always involves a man and a woman. The exclusion is an example of just discrimination carried out to block in law persons not qualified to marry from entering into such a legally recognised relationship.

A lover of trees cannot expect the authorities to issue a city council registration to them for a particular tree in their garden they happen to have a ‘loving concern’ for, on the basis that other citizens who own their dogs and cats can obtain such registrations for them. Owning a pet dog or cat carries with it a particular set of responsibilities for a person living in society. The rights and responsibilities of animal owners go hand-in-hand. Such a legal regime cannot be equated with any legal rights or responsibilities obtained under a council by-law by a tree owner. The point of the analogy is to emphasis that marriage is a right for those who qualify and no one else. It is not a universal right that applies to all persons regardless of age, as age is one of the qualifying criteria! Homosexual and lesbian activists pursue a legal nonsense when they claim that society is duty-bound to provide a legal means by which their same-sex relationships can be formalised. The state is under no such obligation – no more so than it has a duty to allow two elderly and emotionally attached siblings living in a long-term (non-sexual) loving relationship, to enter into a legally recognised relationship.

Adults involved in multiple sexual partner relationships may well hanker after state recognition of their lifestyle-choice but the state has no obligation to recognise and legitimise in law such immoral lifestyle choices. There are a significant number of bi-sexual people in New Zealand whose sexual appetite and emotional needs may best be served in their view by entering into a committed and loving three-way relationship, or other multiple relationship. Why shouldn’t the state offer a type of civil union for these people? Surely they have human rights - the same as homosexuals and lesbians? Why do we discriminate against threesomes and only legitimise couples? Of course the philosophy undergirding the civil union promotion campaign falls apart when applied to such cases. The inconsistency of the "gay" activist case for civil unions is clear. Their catchcry "love doesn’t discriminate … neither should the law" is nonsense.

Same-sex couples in New Zealand cannot enter into marriage because marriage is by definition a legal relationship that must involve a man and a woman. The law does not discriminate against them in this respect and this was confirmed in the Court of Appeal judgement Quilter v Attorney General (1998). They already have legal protection for their joint relationship property once they have been in a relationship for at least three years, in the event that it breaks up (The Property Relationships Amendment Act 2001). However, they demand more. They insist on all the benefits that are afforded to married couples and advocate a solemnisation procedure (a civil union ceremony) to formalise their relationships. However, some "gay" critics of the Civil Union Bill say the nature of such registrations differs little in process and principle from that involving a dog registration. It is hard to disagree with this analysis when the essential ‘solemnisation’ of a civil union is devoid of any connection with the fundamental unifying principle of mankind and source of its regeneration – the unique male-female state-sanctioned and divinely-sanctioned bond called marriage.

Marriage is invested with time-honoured meaning in that it formalises the one and only life-giving relationship – involving the complementarity of the two sexes - that binds society together through intergenerational kinship links, a commitment to life-long fidelity and intimate loving friendship and support.

The Civil Union Bill proposes that each person entering a civil union is legally required to make a declaration to his or her partner using a marriage solemnisation form but substituting the words "civil union partner" for "husband" and "wife". These gender specific words would not be able to be used and if used would invalidate the civil union. "I take you ‘X’ as my civil union partner" would be the form used by same-sex and opposite sex couples entering a civil union. Having entered into a civil union, the Bill proposes that all civil union couples be treated under the law as if they were married with two limitations: they would lack the right to adopt children (at least for the present) and a civil union would only be recognised in this country. All these rights can only be conferred on civil union couples if the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is passed into law.

The same-sex proposition cannot tolerate the idea that any real, deep and necessary differences exist between the sexes. Sexual differences are seen to be like mere personality types and body parts can be interchangeable since the same core is common to all persons, irrespective of their gender. Marriage for "gay" activists loses all connection with the concept of gender differences. It becomes merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is fair for two men and two women to enter a civil union, why not three, or five or 17? The words "husband" and "wife" become words with no meaning. Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. "Mother" and "father" would become words with no meaning.


© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines




InfoPages News Channels


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.