GAY MARRIAGE ?

New Zealand has just gone through the political agony of passing legislation to provide for civil union. That is a legal celebration of a union that mimics all the law surrounding marriage. It’s puzzling that the only people in New Zealand who want to get married these days are the gays. Companion legislation under consideration, validates defacto relationships and gives them the same rights and obligations as formal marriages in the name of equality. The problem with this is the suggestion that this will be retrospective, back-dated. A form of compulsory unionism. The Reverend Moon marries thousands in Korean stadiums, the law has the potential of the biggest "mass marriage" in history.

I was first elected to the New Zealand Parliament in 1972 and I spoke about how dreadful were our laws that could imprison people for their bedroom activities. It was the Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who coined the phrase "the State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation." Over the past 30 years, one of the most important changes in New Zealand has been the advancement of women’s rights. 30 years ago if there was a divorce and the woman did not have a job in the workplace, she could get nothing. We made that a 50-50 partnership. Now there’s talk of extending that to a loss of earnings so that a claim can be made against a partner’s future earnings. The argument behind this is that the woman often sacrificed to put the male partner in business or supported their studies. The woman did not get qualified as she could have, therefore deserves financial consideration for life based on this unequal partnership. This is the law in Vermont, now the marriage capital of the United States. I’m a liberal in these issues. But here’s the problem. If you agree the state has no business in the nation’s bedrooms, can you support the state having the power to enforce what politicians think is morally acceptable? Let me explain. Most people, including myself, would support anti-hate legislation. That is outlawing racist, homophobic, vile propaganda. Vilification laws are on the books in most democracies. Many such as Holland, Denmark and Canada already allow gay marriages. Good for them. But wait a minute, when backed by over-jealous enforcement agencies such as Human Rights Commissions, and Broadcasting standards authorities, something else begins to happen. Reports from Canada suggest churches have been taken to these bureaucratic authorities to force them to open their churches to gay marriages. To refuse to do so is discrimination. Perhaps someone could sue the Catholic Church or the Mosque so they had to allow women or gay priests. Hello?

People should not discriminate in employment, housing, or in opportunities for education. Fair enough. But it’s hard to legislate, even dangerous, to force people to be tolerant or respectful in pain of legal punishment. The very funny English actor, Rowan Atkinson of Black Adder and Mr. Bean fame, was reported as fearing anti-vilification law in Britain because it could prevent the ancient right, even a solemn duty, to make fun of our ridiculous differences. There were once laws against mocking the sovereign. It was subversive. Now it could be against the law to make fun of the current generation of earnest believers in the name of equality. See the problem? Perhaps it could be solved by putting a comedian on all these boards. And that’s not new. In the old days the only person who could mock the king or queen was the court jester. All this is a matter of degree of implementation, balance and common sense. Hateful clerics who preach terrorism, the K.K.K., cruel and vicious words can hurt, and contrary to the cliché "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me," wars are caused by words first.

What’s distasteful in New Zealand is the appalling claims of the religious right about the abominations of differences. But there is also a religious left which preaches you must be tolerant and agree with me otherwise our friends, liberal, non-believers, will legislate against you.

Democratic progressive parties throughout the world have used religion and the words of Jesus to justify their economic and social policies of equality. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, early labour leaders in New Zealand, Australia and the U.K. evoked the vision of the shining city on the hill. The moral foundation of redistribution of wealth of income has its genesis in the parable of loaves and fishes. U.K. Labour Prime Minister, Clem Atlee, said, "We owe more to Methodism than Marx." Every society will face these issues, how to navigate then while keeping a sense of justice, balance and good humour will be the challenge.