The referendum question

The New Zealand First party and Michael Laws (ex-NZ First, as it happens) are arguing that the issue of marriage equality in NZ should go to a referendum.

The only problems with this are that referenda cost money ($11 million for the last one we had, and that was run at the same time as a general election), and that in order to get one happening in the first place you either need the Government to make one happen or go through the long bothersome Citizens’ Initiated Referendum process, gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures (like the anti-asset sales campaign is doing now).

Now, the only reason those last two things are really “problems” is that we’ve obviously got a government which doesn’t think this is a big enough issue to hold a binding national referendum on – and given that, neither NZ First or Michael Laws seem to actually be interested in doing the hard work themselves to make a CIR happen!

Meanwhile, because Louisa Wall’s bill got pulled from the ballot, we have an opportunity to have that debate in a slightly different way – instead of trying to get the whole voting population out ticking boxes, Parliament can send the bill to a Select Committee which can make the time to hear and accept submissions from all New Zealanders.

We still don’t know how NZ First is going to vote, either – Marriage Equality has their MPs down as abstaining, but it’s not clear if they’ll abstain or vote against.

There’s nothing inherently bad about having a referendum on marriage equality (though as a lot of people have pointed out, Switzerland didn’t give women the vote until 1971 – all because of referenda!).  But we have the opportunity now to have that debate, and the people calling loudest for a referendum don’t seem to actually want to do any of the work involved themselves.

Let’s send the bill to a Select Committee and have that debate now, instead of spending over $10 million on a simple, but potentially unclear, box-ticking exercise.

The arguments against marriage equality – nature

In a previous post we talked about Fr Merv Duffy’s argument:

[Marriage equality] is wrong because marriage is a historical and cultural universal reflecting our nature

Then, we dealt with the first part – that marriage is “a historical and cultural universal”.  (To recap:  it isn’t!)

Now we want to deal with the second part – “reflecting our nature”.

You can take that statement a couple of different ways, but Fr Duffy elaborates:

Humans are a sexually differentiated species – males and females are different – and we pair-bond.

The problem is:  there are a lot of sexually differentiated species in nature.  Plenty of them pair-bond, but plenty don’t, and among both the species who the majority of the time pair-bond and the species who don’t, we know same-sex “relationships” occur.

(We’ve put “relationships” in quotation marks because … well, we can’t exactly check their Facebook status to see how they think about it!)

We know it’s not exactly academically rigorous to link to Wikipedia, but its article on homosexuality in animals is very well-referenced (that’s always a good sign) and notes that:

• homosexual or bisexual behaviour has been observed in around 1,500 species;
• it’s well-documented in about 500 species;
• and though there’s a definite difference between the behaviour and proof of an actual sexual orientation, we’ve also seen animals which clearly show a life-long preference for homosexual relationships.

Now, the article goes on to explain that this is a really complex area of study (sexuality and sexual behaviour is complex?  No way!) and of course there’s a lot of room for one side or another to be pushing a particular agenda or bias which clouds the research.

But the fact of the matter is that gay swans raise their kids better.

Seriously, though, the science isn’t decided one way or another.  But in nature, there’s no absolute final conclusion to be made about whether or not same-sex relationships are “natural”.

And besides, humans already do plenty of things that aren’t “natural”.  Is Fr Merv Duffy going to stop wearing clothes and microwaving his dinner now?

Why you can be against marriage equality – but still support it

One of the articles on the “Protect Marriage” site is a reprint of a 2008 article by David Blankenhorn – a “liberal Democrat” who “does not favour same-sex marriage.”

(The whole article is here.)

It’s easy to see why this article applies to people who are anti-marriage equality.  It gives a great example of someone who considers himself liberal, but doesn’t see his liberal views as naturally aligning with marriage equality.

The downside for the people who want to “protect marriage” by locking it away and only letting some people enjoy it is that we get to play the same game – with the very same guy!

This is an article from the very same David Blankenhorn, from 2012.  In the four years between that article, reproduced by the Protect Marriage website, and now, Blankenhorn has had a change of heart:

But there are more good things under heaven than these beliefs. For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.

So how about that?  The “liberal Democrat who’s against same-sex marriage” has become “the liberal Democrat who is still personally against same-sex marriage but thinks it’s the right thing to do because gay people deserve equal rights.”

Hat-tip to Red Queen at GayNZ.com

Update for Sunday 5 August

Marriage equality:  Why are we still debating this? – Left Wing Rants

If you go back 200 years, dictionaries would probably have defined voting as something done exclusively by men, but that didn’t prevent women from getting the vote.

Of choice, commitment, sex, desire and love – Kiwiblog

So in my view we do not get much of a choice about desire/attractiveness or love. But we do get a choice about sex and about commitment. And if same sex couples want to make a life-long commitment to each other to marry, then I think that is a great thing – and something that makes society better – as well as provides much happiness to that couple.

“Pink dollar” boost seen for NZ in gay marriage – The Press

Changing the law to allow gay marriage could create a bumper tourism industry as couples spend big while celebrating their legalised Kiwi weddings.

Rodney Hide: Wed for better, not worse – NZ Herald

The Marriage Act 1955 doesn’t say I can’t marry a man or that a woman can’t marry a woman.

But the courts have ruled that it wasn’t Parliament’s intent to enable same-sex marriage and that it’s up to Parliament, not the courts, to declare whether same-sex marriages are lawful, not the courts. It’s a fair call.

We have to note that Mr Hide is, on this issue, looking a lot more faithful to the ACT Party’s liberal values than its current leader!

Standing up for freedom for the sexually adventurous Right – The Standard (Note:  just a little bit tongue-in-cheek!)

The Right seems to be a collection of polygamy-curious, animal-loving, uber-lovers. And good on them (apart from the bestiality). But I’m still not sure why any of the Right’s secret fetishes leads to them thinking that two consenting adults who want to marry oughtn’t be allowed to do so.

Meanwhile, across the ditch …

Tasmania goes it alone on gay marriage – Herald Sun

Gay rights activists and the Greens this year jointly launched a report that estimated the value to Tasmania of becoming the country’s first gay-marriage destination at $100 million.

Update for Saturday 4 August

Crossing over into other people’s rights – An Objectless Guilt

But there are more important things for the media to consider than ‘balance’ (especially in an argument that quite simply isn’t balanced in the first place) — like respect for, and the wellbeing of, their audience.

Debating marriage equality – Stuff

It is an extremely important piece of proposed legislation. Not only will it allow same-sex couples to marry, but it will also make it easier for them to adopt.

As New Zealanders, we have a strong track record for equal rights; it was New Zealand where women first won the right to vote, in 1893.

Homosexuality a personal choice, says Conservative party leader – NZ Herald

(Warning for homophobic rubbish, but included for Louisa Wall’s response.)

Ms Wall told The Nation her bill would recognise the equality of people’s citizenship in a modern democracy.

“What my bill seeks to do is to allow two people – regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity – to marry within the institution of love that I think marriage is.”

How to be wrong about marriage equality – An Objectless Guilt

The assertion is that, by allowing gay people into the institution, the institution becomes less. That is a disgusting and hateful position to take. What’s more, it imposes on all straight people a presumption bigotry and prejudice that they do not deserve. For someone to feel that their marriage is made less simply because same-sex couples are now permitted to share in the institution requires that that person object to homosexuality. Most people don’t. Most people aren’t bigots.

Louisa Wall and Colin Craig on The Nation – transcript – Scoop

Today’s special feature:  a pretty sharp post from the US, where the marriage equality debate is also raring to go.

If you oppose marriage equality, what else am I supposed to call you? – Friendly Atheist

There is no way to oppose equal rights for gay people without being a bigot/homophobe/asshole/pick-your-word.

You can’t say I love my black friends, but I don’t think they should be allowed to marry white people… without simultaneously being a racist.

It doesn’t matter how big of a smile you put on your face, or how many gay friends you (think you) have, or how often you’ve gone to a gay pride parade.

More reporting on marriage equality discussion

Toby Manhire of The Listener is also keeping a track of the coverage and discussion of marriage equality in NZ.  You can check out his “longblog” here.

Update for Thursday 2 August

Keeping on talking about marriage equality – The Lady Garden

If the state is going to register marriages for some New Zealanders, then it shouldn’t be telling other New Zealanders that they’re not good enough to be married.

Live debate replay: marriage equality – Stuff

Marriage equality debate:  Craig raises polygamy – Stuff

In response to one question on whether the bill would just end up creating “fresh injustices” discriminating toward polygamy, Craig said the bill would inevitably raise that issue.

NZ First will abstain in gay marriage vote – 3News

Mr Peters says he is calling for a referendum because he doesn’t have confidence MPs can make the right decision.

This could actually be pretty good for the campaign – if we agree to take Winston Peters at the words he kind of said.

“Protect” Marriage: A look at the Christian Right’s anti-SSM website – Red Queen, GayNZ.com

What about the ‘research’ that does deal with same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage? Altogether, there were only four papers available in their resource section that dealt with the question under scrutiny. Significantly, of these, two were from the antigay US Family Research Council and UK Christian Medical Fellowship. I will now deal with these in turn.

Train pulls video from anti-gay website – Stuff

Train has now released a statement saying “it was upsetting to us that Marry Me, a love song with no boundaries, was being used to promote an agenda we don’t subscribe to”.

The arguments against marriage equality – “marriage is universal”

Up there in the top menu you can see a page called “The arguments against marriage equality.”  The first few arguments in there were already bubbling around when this site was created, so we stuck them all in one place.

Of course, the people who want to say that marriage is just about “one man and one woman” have a lot of other arguments too, and we plan to challenge those as they arise.

If you see anything you think we haven’t covered yet, drop us a line at protectfamiliesnz @ gmail dot com.

Today’s argument was raised by Fr Merv Duffy in his side of the “head-to-head” article on Stuff:

[Marriage equality] is wrong because marriage is a historical and cultural universal reflecting our nature.

There’s actually two arguments there: the first is that marriage is “a historical and cultural universal” and the second that marriage “reflects our nature”.  We’re dealing with the first one today!

There’s some truth in the idea that “marriage” is pretty much universal in human societies – if by that we mean something pretty complex:  that pretty much all human societies have created ways of structuring or formalising family units, most often based around parents and their children.

But we don’t think that’s what Fr Duffy meant to say (or what anti-marriage equality people mean when they say it either).  In order to be an argument against marriage equality, “marriage is universal” has to be talking about one man/one woman pairings, probably based around having children and knowing who the parents (particularly the father) of those children are.

This already gets tricky, because like we’ve said in the Arguments page already, government doesn’t limit marriage to one man and one woman who plan and are able to have children!

But on top of that, it’s just not true that one-man-one-woman marriage is “universal”.  There’s been plenty of polygyny (one man married to multiple women) in human history, and even a little bit of polyandry (one woman married to multiple men) and you can probably come to some logical-sounding conclusions as to why that might be:  for example, human babies are born in a roughly equal split of boys and girls, so while one-on-one pairing probably works itself out for most people, you might get societies where there aren’t sufficient men, maybe due to ongoing conflict.

And, perhaps unlike same-sex relationships (though the history books are a bit less clear on that) those polygamous relationships have been considered just as important, fundamental, holy or “normal” as one-man-one-woman marriage is supposed to be now.

Add to that some more recent history.  We now let married couples divorce.  We treat couples who aren’t married much the same when it comes to the property side of the relationship.  It’s just not as expected that a couple in a long-term relationship will inevitably get married (or have kids, either!) – and it’s definitely not viewed as a terrible sin by most people.

The definition of that word, “marriage”, has been different across human history, and it’s still changing now.  If you believe that we as members of a society create the values of that society, you can see why over time those values might change.

But a lot of the opponents of marriage equality are opposing it on religious grounds; like Fr Duffy, they see the “definition” of marriage – even if it’s not really an accurate description of all the different forms and practices of human societies over time – as being something fixed and unchangeable.

We clearly disagree on that – and, as Reverend Margaret Mayman’s response to Fr Duffy shows, it’s not a clear-cut matter for all religious people either!

Stuff live chat on marriage equality

A little birdie has told us there’s a live chat, 12.30pm today, on Stuff featuring Colin Craig and Louisa Wall.  Not that we can find anything on their site about it, but these things tend to get unpredictably advertised!

Tune in!  We’d love to ask Colin if he thinks childless or childfree couples don’t deserve to be married, or why he says one-man-one-woman marriage is universal in history, or how it’s going to devalue any of our marriages and families to have other relationships and families given equal rights in law.

We’d like to ask Louisa Wall why she’s so cool.

Update for 1 August 2012

How MPs plan to vote on gay marriage – NZ Herald (interactive infographic-type thing)

Key out to show Nats have another side – John Armstrong, NZ Herald (Please note the comments include some really, really awful stuff)

It is also a matter of consistency. You can hardly tout for votes at the Big Gay Out only to be ambivalent about same-sex marriage. Moreover, if gay marriage has Obama’s backing, who is John Key to quibble with that.

McClay seeks views on gay marriage – Rotorua Daily Post

Todd McClay said he had not yet had an opportunity to fully study the proposed legislation or the Civil Union Act to understand the difference between the existing law and what is proposed.

Merv Duffy is wrong, dangerous and unnecessary – Ideologically Impure

For Father Judgey’s argument to work, you have to believe that our current law is “teaching” us something about gay people, and that “teaching” is basically:  they’re icky.

MPs take sides on gay marriage – Stuff

NZ First is pledging not to back the measure and is calling for a referendum. But momentum appeared to be building for enough votes to pass the “marriage equality” bill being led by Labour MP Louisa Wall.

Quickie: A little bit of love – The Lady Garden

Why am I exhausted? Because I don’t understand why this is a debate at all. We have legislation that says you can’t discriminate based on sexuality, marriage the way it stands now does, so fucking change it. The End.

Religion no longer the wedding norm – Richard Book, Stuff

Of all the opposition noise surrounding Louisa Wall’s same sex marriage bill, 99 per cent has been drummed up in the name of religion. Let’s not dodge that. After all possible shades of moaning from Christians about being persecuted and discriminated against, this issue brings us face-to-face with the reality. The Church still wants everyone, not just its disciples, to adhere to its own particular version of life.

Round 2 – what MPs think of gay marriage – 3News (note: video auto-plays)