Sometime today (which is apparently tomorrow Down Under), the New Zealand Parliament is expected to pass a landmark Civil Unions bill. (The New Zealand Herald has a round-up of recent stories on the issue here.)
UPDATE: The bill has passed. Civil Unions as of April 26, 2005.
In an email, my NZ friend John (along with Annika, he's my "oldest" commenter, going back to my debut in August 2003) quotes the Prime Minister as saying that the bill will "make marriage have no effect", and will, for all intents and purposes abolish distinctions between civil unions and heterosexual marriage. John has been working actively against the bill with the Maxim Institute. At their site, they have loads of information about the struggle against same-sex marriage.
The debate in Parliament has been heated. An excerpt:
Yesterday, MPs again clashed angrily in the debating chamber.
National's Nick Smith called the bill "gay marriage in drag" and told the Government to stop trying to pull off a fraud.
His colleague Brian Connell said the Government had no mandate to pass it, and if it was an election issue Labour would lose power.
Labour's transsexual MP Georgina Beyer led the charge against them, saying arguments against the bill were based on "pious moral grounds with a very strong religious overtone".
"While much of our tradition may be based on the Christianity ethic, in the modern world there are a number of other beliefs," she said.
"Should we all live under the tyranny of the majority of the so-called Christian believers in this country?"
Other Labour MPs said it was a human rights issue, no one was being forced into civil unions, and the new law would have no effect at all on marriage.
I'll post an update once more is known about the final vote.
Of course, I rejoice in what I see as progress. But whenever triumphs come (and they haven't come often in recent weeks in this country), I try and temper my exuberance with compassion for those whose faith and world view leads them to see things differently. Facing near-certain defeat for "his side", John sent me one of his typically eloquent e-mails today, and I'll just quote this section, as it is characteristic of his passion and his grace:
I'm telling you what to you will be irrelevant trivia to tell you I understand what it must be like for you to have Kerry lose. Of course, we shall carry on
whatever happens, and while I am slightly (OK, a lot) depressed at the level of political debate and discussion (Non-existent) and even more depressed about the role of the Church, I am not despairing. Sad, yes. Despairing, no.
When I contemplate the contemporary American political climate, I too am sad, but not despairing. We do well to remember the humanity and decency of our opponents when we are victorious. John was among several conservative commenters who were gracious and sympathetic in the aftermath of the Great Disappointment of November 3. I'd like to extend the same courtesy to those in New Zealand today who do not see this bill as the giant leap forward that I perceive it to be.
I appreciate it, Hugo. You missed the best bit; Mr. Barnett's charming comparison of Black Pentecostals with Nazis, the Gay Express plastering the No voters on their front cover with the headline "The ugly face of Homophobia", and Beyer's screaming (literally) defiance at the Christians in the public gallery. To be fair, you did get my third-favourite Tory (Mr. Smith), but you missed my favourite line from Mr. Connell: "This is a rotten Bill, this government is rotten to the core, and the Prime Minister is the most rotten apple in it".
The office is quiet this morning-We are awaiting the gloating from the lib-Labs with Christian resignation. Your post has made waiting for the axe a little easier, and I appreciate it.
Posted by: John | December 08, 2004 at 12:15 PM
New commenter here, hi Hugo. I found your blog a couple of months ago courtesy of a late night random surf.
Just to say that there's one Kiwi reading here who will be rejoicing her socks off this afternoon if this bill goes through. Not, however, in the gloating fashion you mention, John.
Posted by: Helen | December 08, 2004 at 02:28 PM
If we had even had a debate instead of emotive posturing and Christian (and gay, to be fair)-bashing, I shouldn't mind losing so much. Maxim has put out any number of op-eds and raised dozens of points, and the opposition has answered none of them, contenting themselves with "Look at Tim and Robert, look how lovely they are". This is a major social change; the least we can do is debate it, not ram it through under Urgency, ignoring the submissions to the select Committee and denying us the chance to vote on the issue.
I expect that the gay party in the Great Hall of Parliament tonight will be full of gloating, although I'm glad to hear Helen will not be amongst them.
Posted by: John | December 08, 2004 at 02:44 PM
Without commenting on the way the CUB's gone through parliament (nothing personal, John, it's just that I'm a bit debated-out on the whole CUB topic) I would point out that there would have been an equally large number of gloating voices - if not more - raised by the bill's opponents, had the vote gone their way.
Perhaps the Maxim Institute would have taken it gracefully but, having seen the Destiny Church crew up close and personal, that would not have been the standard response of the bill's opponents.
Posted by: Helen | December 09, 2004 at 03:36 AM
Well, speaking as a kiwi lesbian studying for her phd in the states, you might take what I say with a grain of salt of course :)
I personally am rejoicing. I am so incredibly proud of my little country, especially given the wider current situation of civil rights here in the US.
The interesting thing is that I have a long term friend back home in NZ, and she is an orthodox catholic, and needless to say she is quite disappointed right now. The funny thing is that we have wonderful discussions even though we disagree on even virtually all basic assumptions, and I was a witness at her marriage back when I still lived in NZ.
So yes, while I am filled with happiness and joy, I would never do it in a gloating way because I respect her too much, even though I'll be dead before I truely understand her positions on things.
Now, admittedly of course I never saw the amount of discussion and debate, being almost on the other side of the world, but I did read that this bill received the largest number of public submissions in kiwi history (or close to it). Moreover, as to debate, didn't after a certain point get to being simply a continual reiteration of previously stated positions from both sides?
I guess for a lot of us on 'this side' it comes down to that we don't see this as a major social change. Sure, it is social change, but one of the major things we have always pointed out is that contemporary definitions of intimate unions _easily_ encompass same-sex unions. Further, this is simply a formalising of a recognition that had been occurring for quite a while informally in NZ.
As to the church's place in this. Well, simply, living in the states, I have to say its really nice to remember what a country that REALLY has a seperation of church and state is like. Now, to Destiny (and I in no way think they are indicative of churches in general in kiwiland) they made it personal, and honestly, we're sick of being the nice, respectful and polite ones in the face of bigotry and hatred like that.
But regardless, congrats NZ! This is wonderfully a day to be truely proud of being a kiwi :)
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah in Chicago | December 10, 2004 at 06:09 AM