CIVIL UNIONS IN NEW ZEALAND

Click Here to Visit our Sponsors.

First developments: Year 2000:

On 2000-NOV-13, Newsroom published a report titled: "New Zealand Christian groups oppose broadening marriage rights."

The New Zealand government had announced that it was planning to introduce a single bill which would define rights and obligations of:

1. Opposite-gender couples who marry, 
2. Same-gender couples who register their relationship with the government as a civil union (or a relationship called by a similar name). They would be given the same rights and obligations as married couples, but would not be called married couples, and 
3. Couples who simply live together without having their relationships registered with the government.

This is believed to be the first proposed legislation by any government that would have included all three types of relationships in the same law.

Some of the individuals mentioned in the following article appear to misunderstand the proposed legislation. They seem to think that the government is simply planning to enlarge the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The government's actual intent is similar to that of the State of Vermont: to create a parallel type of relationship for gays and lesbians which would be given the same rights as married couples, but would not refer to them as married. The term "marriage" would still refer only to opposite-sex couples registered by the government.

Newsroom reported in 2000-NOV:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand:
Christian groups in New Zealand have vowed to fight government plans to recognize gay and lesbian relationships and grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples.

Should the government legalize same-sex marriage, complete with divorce and adoption rights, New Zealand would be the third country to do so. Denmark allowed homosexual marriages in 1989, and the Netherlands passed similar legislation in [2000] September.

Same-sex marriage is an equally divisive topic in the United States, where voters in 35 states have approved legislation defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman only. Some of those states also refuse to recognize same-sex relationships made legal by court order and subsequent legislative action in Vermont earlier this year and by the Hawaii legislature in 1997.

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark favors legal recognition of gay couples, despite significant opposition in public submission to a government discussion paper. Clark says recognition could happen within a year, but laws governing the division of property could be passed as early as next month.

A Parliamentary Select Committee decided to push through the Property (Relationships) Bill, which would give the same property rights as married couples to gay and de facto couples after three years together. The bill is likely to become effective in February 2002.

More than 130,000 couples, including 1,600 gay couples, would be affected but could sign "opt-out" agreements to avoid property splits.

A parliamentary report released earlier this month indicated that many New Zealand residents support the proposals despite concerns raised by 1,631 public submissions. Justice Ministry officials said it could not find any other country that included married, de facto, and same-sex couples in one law.

New Zealand lawyers oppose the proposed property law changes and have been advising couples on the changes to keep their assets separate.

Associate Justice Minister Margaret Wilson has said the new law is "sensible, fair, liberal, and humane," but many [conservative] Christian groups disagree. The Christian Heritage Political Party (CHP) opposed property law reforms and will oppose any attempts to reform marriage laws.

"Children have the right to be parented by both a mother and a father," Christian Heritage leader the Reverend Graham Capill told Newsroom. "They need the input of a male and a female. If the government tries to bring in legislation for homosexual marriage or the adoption of children, we will create quite a campaign."

The CHP was among 8,464 organizations and individuals that responded to a Ministry of Justice discussion paper, "Same Sex Couples and the Law," released to gauge feelings on the issue of gay unions. The New Zealand government asked the ministry to prepare the 16-question paper to assess the consistency between the Human Rights Act and other laws that treat same-sex couples differently from traditional marriages. The discussion paper followed a 1998 Court of Appeal decision prohibiting same-sex couples from legally marrying under New Zealand’s gender-neutral 1955 Marriage Act.

The Justice Ministry received 3,546 responses representing the views of 8,464 organizations and individuals, with religious groups making up the bulk of groups that responded. Eighty percent of the respondents rejected assertions that same-sex couples should marry, while 82 percent said same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt. Many asserted that the government was wrong to decriminalize homosexuality when the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed.

The report summarizing responses was completed in July but has only recently been released. Many respondents consider marriage a moral and religious institution, rather than a secular one. Others view the current refusal to allow same-sex marriage and subsequent legal protections as a breach of human rights. Under the 1993 Human Rights Act, discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality and religion is prohibited. The act, however, does not supersede other legislation. It defines homosexuality, but not religion.

Clark, who said she had not read the submissions, dismissed the comments as not reflective of public opinion.

But Capill accused the Coalition Labour Government of selective listening on moral matters: "If the result had been the other way around you can bet your bottom dollar that Helen Clark would say, ‘Here’s a mandate to change legislation.’ Labour is trying to have their cake and eat it, too."

Marriage between a man and a woman is the appropriate environment for child-rearing, Capill insisted. He did not disagree that gay couples can have stable, long-lasting relationships. But he shares the opinion of the New Zealand’s Catholic Bishops Conference that such relationships are not the basis for legal entitlements. The Catholic church teaches that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. New Zealand’s bishops object to registration of same-sex couples, but support legislation that protects human rights, including property rights.

The New Zealand Law Commission supports registration of same-sex couples. But Commissioner D.F. Dugdale contends that same-sex marriages would offend many people. "Gays and lesbians should be prepared to acknowledge that they are not harmed by a legal code designed to avoid giving what may be seen as a gratuitous offense to those for whom matrimony is a holy estate," he said in a submission to the ministry.

Gay Christian groups disagree. GalaXies Incorporated (Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Christian community), based in Wellington, believes that same-sex couples should have the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples in regard to marriage, including access rights upon the death of a partner.

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission backs reforms to secure legal rights for gay couples. People in same-sex relationships are second-class citizens with respect to the most important aspect of their personal lives, the commission maintains. Any reform should allow them to choose a legal status which is in all respects the same as that attaching to marriage, the commission contends.

But that does not necessarily mean access to marriage law, maintains Nigel Christie, a legal adviser to New Zealand’s gay community. A prominent supporter of gay rights in New Zealand and a member of at least six homosexual groups, Christie notes a recent decision of a New Zealand High Court judge defining marriage as a fundamental civil right covering public and secular areas, rather than spiritual affairs. On the basis of equality under New Zealand’s domestic Human Rights law, Christie maintains that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

Wellington Christian Apologetics Society director David Lane calls that right an attack on the Christian faith. He is appalled at calls to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, arguing that any moral aspect cannot be ignored. "[Marriage] is about giving legal preference to a unique relationship between a man and a woman because of what that relationship does for social order," he said. "To call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage’ is an inversion of the very term."

Clark indicated that the introduction of any bill redefining marriage laws would be subject to a conscience vote after a Parliamentary Select Committee hearing. A conscience vote is one in which a political party does not direct its members about how to vote but leaves the vote to the individual member's conscience.

Lane concedes that homosexuality is no worse a sin than promiscuity or adultery but says the family is "the cornerstone of society" and must be preserved in law.

Little change by 2004-AUG:

David Benson-Pope, the Associate Justice Minister of New Zealand is the lead sponsor of the proposed Civil Union and Relationships (Statutory References) bill. The bill would grant same-sex couples, opposite-sex couples and common-law couples the same rights, privileges and obligations. If passed, then opposite-sex couples will continue to be able to marry; same-sex couples will be able to enter into civil unions. The bill was given first reading in parliament in 2003-JUN, and was sent to a select committee for public feedback.

Benson-Pope criticize religious conservatives from the Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant wings of Christianity who opposed the legislation.

Text of the bill:

General policy statement:
The purpose of the Bill is to establish civil union for different and same sex couples. The Bill provides for different sex couples who want formal recognition of their relationship but for whatever reason do not wish to marry.

Providing a mechanism for same sex couples to formally solemnise their relationship is part of the Government's objective of creating a positive human rights culture. The Bill will address the current situation in which same sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationship.

The Bill provides for civil union in New Zealand, and sets out the requirements and processes to enter a civil union and for the appointment of celebrants. It also provides for registration and dissolution of civil unions. The provisions in the Bill are based on the provisions for marriage but have been modernised to reflect current law, policy, and practice. The Bill sets out the requirements for civil union in the form of a stand-alone Act to reinforce Parliament's intention that marriage is available solely to a man and a woman. The recognition of civil unions and the conferring of rights and responsibilities to civil union partners across other legislation will be addressed separately in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill.

Summary of main measures

Converting between marriage and civil union: The bill allows married opposite-sex couples to convert their marriage into a civil union. Opposite-sex couples who are in a civil union can convert their civil union into a marriage.

A large number of existing laws would be amended to replace phrases referring to marriage with similar phrases referring to "marriage or civil union." ₄

Public reactions to the proposed bill:

The public's thoughts on the proposed Civil Union Bill (CUB) and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill (RSRB) were solicited by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Dr Alison Laurie and a team from the Gender and Women's Studies at Victoria University of Wellington analyzed 6,350 submissions on behalf of the Campaign for Civil Unions. Cameron Law, coordinator of the Campaign concluded that: "It is clear from the submissions that those opposing the bills are part of an orchestrated campaign that fits within a 'biblical literalist' or fundamentalist religious framework. The submissions against the bills are based on narrow, moralistic claims. The submissions in favor of the legislation are based on experience - direct experience - of the problems in the current legal framework."

Some data:

Law concluded that: "The common theme behind the submissions against the bills is that many of them are clearly the result of an organized campaign among fringe Christian groups. They do not represent a mainstream Christian viewpoint, let alone the views of most New Zealanders. Submissions in favor of the legislation stand in stark contrast to this. They are based on the real experiences faced by ordinary people, and they stand up for human rights for all New Zealanders."

GayNZ commented that: "Those writing in support of the bills mostly used evidence to support their arguments. The main arguments in support were based on human rights, and on the concern that, in a secular society, legislation based on religious laws was unacceptable to the majority." _5,6

Civil unions law passed in 2004-DEC:

As debate on the civil unions bill continued in Parliament, demonstrators on both sides of the issue faced each other. Supporters of the Campaign for Civil Union were present, along with the mostly Christian opposition. One of the latter's banners read: "Mum and Dad Say No to Civil Union Bull"

Meanwhile, there was disagreement in Parliament over whether the bill would authorize gay marriage. Member of Parliament (MP) Nick Smith of the National party argued it was gay marriage. So did the United Future party. Green MP Nandor Tanczos sid: "Is this gay marriage? Well, I wish it was. We wanted to amend the Marriage Act." The Labour party agreed with the Greens. Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First said that the Government claimed that the legislation would bring about "one law for all" relationships. But Peters denied that it would. He said that the legislation would treat them as second-class citizens by denying them the right to marry. Labour MP Russell Fairbrother agreed with Peters, saying: "This is a sop for the gay community." He said that the government had backed down from its original plans, because many New Zealanders were simply not ready to accept same-sex marriage.

The bill passed 65 to 55 on a "conscience vote"; legislators were not required to vote according to the wishes of their party. Reaction to the packed public gallery was mixed: supporter erupted with loud cheers. Opponents were silent. The Members of Parliament defeated an alternative bill that would have called for a national referendum.

Some comments:

The bill comes into effect in 2005-APR. _7,8

References

1. "New Zealand Christian groups oppose broadening marriage rights." Newsroom, 2000-NOV-13, at: http://www.newsroom.org 
2. "Catholics, Evangelicals Targeted as 'Hate-Filled' for Opposing NZ Civil Union Legislation," LifeSite, 2004-AUG-18, at: http://www.lifesite.net/
3. Patrick Goodenough, "Opponents of Same-Sex 'Civil Unions' Equated with Hate-Groups," Cybercast News Service, 2004-AUG-18, at: http://www.cnsnews.com/
4. The text of the Civil Unions bill is online at: http://civilunions.org.nz/
5. "Report on the written submissions (Victoria University)," GayNZ, at:
   http://civilunions.org.nz/
6. "Analysis: The submissions for and against Civil Unions," GayNZ.com, 2004-DEC-03, at: http://www.gaynz.com/
7. Ruth Berry and Ainsley Thomson, "Passions run high before Civil Union debate ends," New Zealand Herald, 2004-DEC-10, at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
8. "New Zealand Parliament adopts same-sex civil union law," Agence France-Presse, 2004-DEC-09, at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/

Copyright © 2000 and 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-NOV-14
Latest update: 2004-DEC-10
Partly written by: B.A. Robinson