The legalisation of gay marriage in New York has given momentum to the international debate on same-sex unions.
Following euphoric scenes in America with tears, mass engagements and public declarations of love, countries across the world are reassessing their recognition of same-sex partnerships. Is conferring the legal rights of marriage on civil unions the best way to achieve justice? Or is the only path to equality down the marriage aisle with lace, church, priest and cultural baggage in tow? With these dilemmas gaining publicity in an election year, Salient feature writer, Selina Powell, talks to your democratic representatives about the issue.
Civil Unions—the Same Legal Rights?
New Zealand law does not allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, but provides for same-sex couples to enter civil unions. Those against further extending recognition of same-sex relationships have argued that the current rights couples have under civil unions are sufficient, and that married couples are treated in the same way by the law.
Bill Atkin, Relationship Property and Family Law lecturer at Victoria, notes that there are two differences in the way that the law treats a civil union when compared to a marriage. The most significant difference is that a married couple can adopt, while a civil union couple cannot. While not solely discriminating against same-sex couples (heterosexual de facto and civil union couples cannot adopt children), the brunt of this provision impacts on the gay community.
Grant Robertson, Labour MP for Wellington Central, explains that over 100 pieces of legislation were amended to provide equal rights for civil union couples when the Civil Union Act was introduced. However, the Adoption Act was seen to be so outdated that a comprehensive overhaul was needed, not just the inclusion of civil unions.
While successive Governments have failed to implement these changes, Charles Chauvel, Labour Spokesperson for Justice, says that the Labour party is focused on eliminating the inequalities between civil unions and marriages. Chauvel has drafted a private member’s bill to update adoption laws for Labour MP, Jacinda Ardern, which he says is widely supported by the Labour caucus. Kevin Hague, Greens MP is also advocating for comprehensive adoption reform which would enable same-sex couples to adopt.
A Long Engagement
Despite inequalities in the rights of married couples when compared with civil union couples, advocating for same-sex marriage is not the highest priority for Greens or Labour. National continues its deafening silence on the issue.
Although Chauvel believes that, “every lawful relationship deserves the full protection of the law”, the current priority for Labour is to confer the rights of marriage on civil unions, rather than initiating a separate campaign for same-sex marriages.
This policy has been developed in consultation with rainbow communities according to Chauvel. He notes that if further talks revealed a preference for a marriage equality campaign, “we would review our approach, and I would personally be supportive, but that has not been the view expressed to us to date.”
Hague supports gay marriage but has chosen to focus on other campaigns while the composition of Parliament makes successful marriage reform unlikely.
“Eventually I believe that New Zealand will legalise gay marriage (or alternatively repeal the Marriage Act, making marriage itself a religious-only institution) but I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon. I’d say at least five years away and more likely ten or more.”
Hague says that his highest priority at the moment is to create a more supportive environment for young people coming out. Several Rainbow Greens initiatives are based around this aim.
Perhaps the largest hurdle to the introduction of gay marriage in New Zealand is the high level of Government apathy on the issue. Most National MPs, including John Key, voted against the Civil Union Act when it was enacted in 2004. Chris Tremain, National MP for Napier, says that National has “no policy” on same-sex marriage and that each MP is free to make their own decision on the issue if a bill comes before Parliament.
Public Views on Same Sex Marriage
An independent public poll on same sex marriage conducted by Research New Zealand in the wake of events in New York found that 60 per cent of New Zealanders over 18 believe that same-sex marriages should be permitted in New Zealand. The poll found that females and younger age groups were more likely to favour gay marriage. Research New Zealand Director, Emanuel Kalafatelis,observed in a media release that the findings show “attitudes in this area are in advance of legislation”.
However, Family First NZ disputes this view on the basis of a study which it commissioned through another independent research organisation, Curia Market Research. The Curia Poll found that only 42 per cent disagreed with continuing to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman.
Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First, says that these results are, “in direct contrast to the 60 per cent support for gay marriage argued by Research NZ”. McCoskrie notes that, “politicians would do well to progress slowly on this issue rather than capitulate to strong lobbying to change the definition.”
A possible explanation for the difference between the polls, is that while the Research NZ poll is proportionate to the New Zealand population, only 25 per cent of those polled by Curia were between the ages of 18 and 45. According to Statistics New Zealand figures, around 45 per cent of the New Zealand adult population falls into this age bracket.
David Farrar, from Curia Market Research, concedes that young New Zealanders, who are more likely to support same-sex marriage, are under represented in the poll. However, Farrar notes that as fewer young New Zealanders vote, this poll is more representative of the New Zealand voting population. He also observes that women were over represented in the survey (at 57 per cent), and generally women are more likely to support same-sex marriage.
Redefining Marriage?
Family First has frequently expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. McCoskrie argues that including couples of the same sex within marriage would infringe on traditional definitions of marriage. He contends that, “Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone.”
McCoskrie does not think that prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates against the gay community. He also questions whether the ‘all love is equal’ campaign is a sound one in support of same-sex marriage.
“Same-sex people cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of people. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man cannot marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish.”
Hague emphatically rejects the view that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine marriage.
“On the contrary, I maintain that any state sanctioning of relationships that exclude some couples who love each other is cheapened by its embedded prejudice. Marriage is worth more and is more meaningful if all couples who love each other can marry.”
The symbolism of denying same-sex couples the right to marry is important, according to Hague.
“Making the ultimate form of state approval of a loving relationship unavailable to same sex couples signals very powerfully that we remain second class citizens, with our relationships not as valuable as those of our heterosexual fellow citizens.”
Gay Marriage v Equal Rights for Civil Unions
Some argue that if a couple can receive the same rights within a civil union as within a marriage, there is no harm to society in restricting the right to marry to heterosexual couples. If same-sex marriage was allowed, it is likely that many gay and lesbian couples would continue to enter civil unions because of their secular nature, just as many heterosexual couples currently choose civil unions over marriage.
Peter Tatchell, Australian-born gay rights advocate, has argued for the right to marry in the Sydney Star Observer, despite the fact that Tatchell does not personally wish to marry.
“Personally, I don’t like marriage. I share the feminist critique of its history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of others to marry, if they wish. Everyone should have a choice.”
The American Psychological Association has recently called for both state and federal officials to legalise same-sex marriage. The recommendations of the Association are based in research which found that prohibiting gay marriage causes increased rates of stress amongst gay and lesbian communities which expose individuals to a higher risk of physical and mental illness.
The APA has rejected civil unions as sufficient state recognition of same-sex unions. Clinton Anderson, a Spokesperson for the APA, told CNN at the beginning of this month that, “Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a stigmatisation of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on people.”
Living The Dream
A question that remains is how long same-sex couples will have to wait before they receive full legal acceptance from their state, whether in the form of a civil union or marriage. In New Zealand it appears that marriage equality is at least a change of Government away. With equal rights through civil unions on the agenda for both Labour and Greens, this is more likely to be the form of state recognition for same-sex unions.
While civil unions might be the pragmatic route to equality, for many marriage conveys a universal, historic affirmation of love which cannot be replaced by a state construct.
As Thatchell notes, “Marriage is the internationally recognised system of relationship recognition. It is the global language of love. When we were young, most of us dreamed of one day getting married. We didn’t dream about having a civil partnership.”