This Sunday night we will be talking about the changes to marriage and the inclusion of homosexual couples in the marriage act here in New Zealand. As a background to this I will be mentioning the debate around the Civil Union bill in 2004. At that time I was asked to speak for the bill and then to write an article explaining my stance. Here is that article, as written in 2004
Speaking for the Civil Union Bill
Early in June I was asked to speak as part of a four person panel at the launch of 'Christians for the Civil Union Bill'. At that time I didn't know very much about the proposed Bill but doing some research on the issues encouraged me to speak.
The introduction of the Civil Union Bill means there will be three legally recognised forms of relationship under New Zealand law. Each will have complimentary legal and financial responsibilities and rights. Marriage and the marriage act will not be changed. A Civil Union will be introduced as a civil contract without the religious and historical significance of marriage. Existing legislation (e.g. property and employment legislation) will also be amended to recognise the rights and responsibilities of people in de-facto relationships.
This has two principal impacts. Firstly it will make it possible to have a binding, committed and societally recognised relationship outside of the religious and historical context of marriage. Today the majority of couples getting married do so with a civil celebrant - outside the church. This indicates that many New Zealanders want a binding relationship outside of religious and church understandings. And as over 80% of New Zealanders are not closely connected with the church this is a reality the state must account for. I was interested recently to hear a young couple (man and woman) say they want to enter a 'civil union' because this is a more equitable relationship that does not carry all the historical inequalities on women that are bound up in many peoples view of marriage. This is also a view which has been personally expressed by the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Justice, who has introduced the legislation changes, David Benson-Pope.
The second impact is that civil unions (unlike marriage) will be available for same-sex couples thereby granting them the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities as men and women who are married. This is the latest move in a long line of government papers and discussions dating back to the adoption of the Human Rights Act in 1993. Successive governments in New Zealand, like those in many other nations, have been working to remove discriminatory legislation based on sexual orientation. Some countries have resolved this by moving to change 'marriage' so same-sex couples can marry while others, like New Zealand, have moved towards the introduction of a new form of 'civil' relationship. The forming of a new type of relationship protects existing understandings of marriage while allowing for the complimentary civil rights of people in same-sex relationships. This was, in fact, the suggestion made by the NZ Baptist committee set up to investigate the issue in response to the 1999 Ministry of Justice discussion paper. While the Baptist church group did not agree with changes to marriage legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry they did recognise the need for some form of civil recognition to ensure the human rights of same-sex couples.
And change is needed to eliminate the unfairness and discriminatory practices in present legislation. For example:
- Death of a partner. If a partner in a gay relationship dies the surviving partner has no legal right to be involved in any funeral arrangements and decisions. The family of the deceased person can, if they so wish, ignore the surviving partners wishes and input. I found it very sad to hear recently of a gay person who had to 'pretend' to be a brother or sister to gain family visiting rights to their partners bedside when they had been critically ill.
- Provision of benefits. If a heterosexual couple are living together under the present law and one applies for a benefit the income of the partner is taken into account in the level of benefit given. Presently when a homosexual couple apply they are not means tested in the same way. This means heterosexual couples (married and de facto) are discriminated against in the provision of existing state benefits.
The proposed legislation will ensure that regardless of the nature of the relationship (married, civil or de facto) financial and legal rights and responsibilities will be equal. This has been the signalled intent of cabinet since September 2001 when it announced agreement in principal to neutral laws on relationships whether married, opposite sex, same sex or de facto.
In deciding to support or not support the proposed legislation I also found I had to consider the alternatives. If the government makes no changes then these discriminatory and unfair practices will continue. As a Christian who believes in justice and the removal of unfair discrimination I could not support a no-change policy. Another alternative would be to change the marriage laws so that same-sex couples could marry. As I interpret the intent of marriage in Genesis 2:24 as being between a man and a woman I could not support a change in this direction. A third alternative could be a form of civil union which allows for lesser financial and legal rights than those allowed for married couples. Again I could not support such legislation as this is also discriminatory on the grounds of a particular (albeit my own) religious beliefs. I couldn't support this alternative in the same way that many Christians would feel hard done by if greater financial and legal rights were given to those who chose a civil union rather than marriage.
Having considered the effects of the proposed changes and the alternatives open to the government I found I supported the introduction of the Civil Union Bill and the related law changes. I support it because it allows for Christian marriage to remain unchanged while also ensuring the human rights of people who would not want to (or be able to) follow a Christian view of marriage and morality. I believe it will protect Christian's and churches right to hold particular biblical, moral and historical views of marriage while also providing a means of protecting the civil rights and responsibilities of people who do not want to or are not able to marry. The change in the law does both.
Although this is my personal view on the proposed changes I didn't speak at the launch of 'Christians for the Civil Union Bill' because I particularly wanted to. I knew that doing so would lead to being labelled and to misunderstandings. I spoke because I was disappointed at the so called Christian voices on the law change that I heard and read. Some of these groups are deliberately prejudicing the bill by calling it "the same-sex marriage bill", or suggesting that the change will make 'marriage meaningless'. But this is to fail to recognise both a Christian view of marriage and the state's decision not to change the legal nature marriage. To claim a civil union is equivalent to Christian marriage surely misses the brilliance of what God intended; God's modelling of the intended relationship within the heavenly Trinity and the reality of thousands of years of marriage before legalisation under nation-states. My decision to marry, for example, was based on far more than a set of financial, funeral, hospital and employment rights. I saw and continue to see marriage as the joining of a woman and a man as 'one-flesh' by God. It is a human parallel to the depth and commitment of relationship found in the Trinity, God and Israel, Christ and the Church. I would argue this is where Christians should focus their attention – the biblical intent of marriage not on state laws about employment or funeral rights.
I spoke because I was appalled to hear some Christian leaders prejudicing people's understandings by suggesting the Civil Union provisions may apply to polygamy, incestuous relationships and three partner marriages. Sadly honesty, justice and compassion are casualties of the desire of such leaders to stop this legislation at all cost.
I do not want to be aligned with such statements, view points or groups. I want to say that I am sorry about the comments and lack of compassion expressed by these Christians. I am sorry for the impression given by the Christian church. An impression which I believe Jesus would never of given. I support the proposed law change which, to my mind, drives a middle line between the removal of discriminatory practices and the protection of Christian principles relating to marriage. I support this because, at least in my mind, there is a difference between what the evangelical church needs to uphold (the ideals of Christian marriage within its own community– see Gen 2:24) and what a secular government needs to protect (the financial and property rights of all its citizens).
