Feature
Uncivil union
by David Young
A juicy rumour has snaked around the gay community, leaving indignation in its rainbow-coloured path. The Christian think-tank Maxim, goes the story, is trying to recruit a homosexual to help it argue against the Civil Union Bill.
Imagine the betrayal of a pink-collared person assisting a lobby group that is perceived to be ultra-conservative. But how could a gay person oppose legislation that would provide some same-sex relationships with official recognition?
I am a gay man who opposes the Civil Union Bill. I wasn’t recruited by Maxim, but I do share that organisation’s belief in the sanctity of marriage.
My partner Jeremiah and I have lived together for three years. Only nine New Zealand laws have recognised relationships like ours. The first was the Electricity Act of 1992. This ground-breaking legislation provided gay couples with the right to fix each other’s household appliances.
Since then, we have been covered by domestic violence and accident insurance measures. We would be means-tested if we applied for public housing. Three years ago, legal recognition was provided for people whose gay partners die without a will.
Around 100 laws exclude same-sex couples. If my partner suffered from an accident or illness, I would not have the right to make decisions about his care. We miss out on financial benefits that come from being in an officially recognised relationship, including superannuation and death benefits.
The Civil Union Bill is the tag given to two pieces of legislation that will be introduced to Parliament later this year. The first creates a new type of relationship called a “civil union”. The second amends the laws that exclude same-sex couples.
The bill was to appear under Lianne Dalziel’s name, but her Cabinet resignation caused Labour to search for a new proponent. New Associate Justice Minister David Benson-Pope is its current unlikely babysitter, although Christchurch Central MP Tim Barnett is its true father.
Civil unions will be available for both same-sex and different-sex couples. The Marriage Act, 1955 – which recognises only a union between a man and a woman – will remain untouched. Heterosexual couples wishing to commit to each other will have two options: marriage or a civil union. Same-sex couples will continue to be barred from marriage, but will be allowed to “register” their union.
Barnett’s website concedes that the civil union option is a “politically achievable” and “pragmatic” solution that has been chosen because a majority of current MPs might support it, but are believed to oppose gay marriage. (Imagine if anti-segregationists had opted for a pragmatic solution: black American Rosa Parks still could not sit in the “whites only” seats at the front of the bus, but whites would have a new choice – they could ignore the signs and sit with her.)
In patronising tones reminiscent of the desegregation debate, social conservatives claim that homosexuals are not up to the responsibilities of marriage. Marriage, they often claim, is for raising children. I’m nonplussed as to why nobody ever stops infertile heterosexuals from tying the knot, but I agree that one role of marriage is to nurture the next generation. All available mainstream studies show that homosexuals are no better and no worse at raising children than are heterosexuals. Although Jeremiah and I haven’t sorted out the logistics yet, we look forward to being fathers.
Let’s be honest: heterosexuals have done an appalling job at looking after marriage. They have been neglectful, abusive and frivolous. Yet the institution retains its pivotal role because its goals are so lofty. Conservative US author Andrew Sullivan argues that marriage provides an anchor in the chaos of sex and relationships – it is a mechanism for emotional stability and economic security. In this context, says Sullivan, the legal set-up that favours marriage over other relationships is deliberate: “Not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue.”
Sullivan is gay. Like me, he believes that civil unions would undermine marriage because creating “a second option” casts aspersions on the traditional institution and opens up an avenue for heterosexuals to get benefits without the responsibilities of marriage. The Economist, which supports gay marriage and opposes civil unions, argues: “To establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all … Why shouldn’t everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions?”
Legalising gay marriage would strength-en the institution by elevating it as the central social convention for all couples who wish to commit to each other.
I have another reason for my stance. Nine years ago – at age 15 – I admitted that I was gay. After the initial joy of identification, my depression was typical: gay and bisexual teenagers have a higher suicide rate than their straight peers.
Being gay wasn’t the problem; it was the feeling of being alone. The only homosexual role models were valiant individuals struggling against the mainstream tide. Unlike my heterosexual friends, I had no template of a successful family model that I could aspire to. I believed life would be a series of meaningless encounters in a community that is at turns worshipful and predatory towards its young.
Social conservatives who rant about promiscuity among some homosexuals should be the first to promote gay
marriage. Marriage reinforces healthy social trends and provides a positive goal.
Page 1 2 
