Marriage Equality Submission

To the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill Select Committee.

Marriage is more than simply the legal rights and benefits associated with it. Marriage is a social institution and custom that is deeply embedded within our culture. As a cornerstone of our social landscape, marriage helps to define who we, as New Zealanders, are. From birth we are raised to see marriage as the fundamental aspiration, one of life’s most important milestones. We grow up, get educated, have our OE, start a career, get married, settle down and support the All Blacks; this is who we are, the concept of ‘kiwi’ our culture fosters.

As a central and defining element of our normative culture, marriage signifies belonging. We are told growing up that we will find a partner, and when we find the one we love, we will marry them. For those who find love within the same nominal gender, to be told that they may not marry the one they love, is to be told that they are different, that they do not belong in our culture. To be ‘othered’. Although we are all different, we should be treated as equals, deserving of the same respect and dignity, in the eyes of the law. For this reason, I find Civil Unions to be an insufficient measure to address the inequality and discrimination against homosexuals: It arbitrarily and unnecessarily differentiates, for no good reason.

It should be a guiding principle that the law respects us all equally, in our various needs and in our desire to participate fully in public life and all that that entails. Opponents of the bill rightly claim that the law discriminates, and I allow this, with the understanding that the law should only discriminate with good reason, and that there is no sufficient reason to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the eye of the law. No good reason specific to homosexual relationships that is not already invalidated by examples of heterosexual couples whose marriages we currently respect.

The Children Argument – Some argue that the purpose of marriage is to have children and raise a family. This is invalidated by the fact that we allow the infertile and the abstinent to marry, as both of my Aunts who are well past child-bearing age have recently done. Not all who marry want children, and the law respects this for heterosexuals. Those in homosexual relationships, however, may end up raising children. Whether this be through conception (artificial, surrogate, or otherwise), or children from a prior relationship, in all cases would it not be in a child’s best interests to provide the stability of a committed and legally respected marriage and the joint adoption this allows?

Religious Freedom – As the law stands, religious celebrants may freely decline to officiate marriage ceremonies, and the bill does not in any way alter that. The bill does not curtail religious freedom, contrary to the hysterics of Family First and their ilk. Ironically, considering such protests, what the bill does is in fact address a CURRENT and EXISTING restriction on religious freedom and practice. Many Christian denominations and congregations do not hold the same anti-gay interpretation of doctrine that is commonly seen in the broader Christian community, and would happily officiate and bless wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. Currently, they are prevented from practicing their understanding of Christianity, purely because of the traditional prejudice our society has held against homosexuality, particularly as expressed by more conservative congregations. The bill actually addresses a curtailing of religious freedom!

Further to this, marriage is not an exclusively religious act. It is, and has always been, a social institution that may or may not contain a religious element. Religion is not a necessary part of marriage, and it seems bizarre that homosexual couples are the ONLY people it is claimed require the permission of the church in order to wed. Atheists may wed, and religious sentiments are never concerned in that question. People from various religions, denominations and congregations may wed, and religious sentiments are never considered there. But if an atheistic homosexual couple wish to marry, people feel that they should not be allowed to do so because of the religious sentiments of people they’ll never meet and whose creed they do not follow? One’s religious freedom ends where it imposes on that of others’.

The Tradition of Marriage – Marriage is a tradition, but it would be a grave error to assume that traditions are static and unchanging. As society changes, its customs change with it, and the traditions that are retained are those that remain relevant. Marriage has existed in countless forms across countless cultures; it has changed as the people that practice it have changed. Traditions are, and should, be maintained only if they possess inherent values worth celebrating, and those values that are harmful should rightly be discarded. Marriage celebrates unity, fidelity, devotion and support, and these are all things that SHOULD be celebrated, and will remain to be celebrated if the bill passes. To deny marriage to homosexuals would be to perpetuate a negative tradition: that of discriminating against and excluding homosexuals from mainstream society. Why should that particular tradition ever be supported?

Extending the tradition of marriage to homosexual couples (or rather, re-extending, as there have been many examples of homosexual marriages around the world at various times in our history) would propagate the positive values of the tradition, it would foster the very things we celebrate about marriage. To oppose this extension is to ignore and curtail the noble values of this tradition in exchange for preserving the most superficial elements, and the ingrained prejudices better left in the past.

The Slippery Slope -  Some argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage to minors, and bestiality. This is argued because certain arguments in favour of same-sex marriage could be applied to these groups, but ignores the most important factor of WHY the slippery slope is a logical fallacy: There are different counter-arguments when the context is changed. There is no logical necessity between allowing same-sex marriage and allowing polygamous or incestuous marriage, none at all. They are different situations, and any rational person can differentiate because there are factors relevant to each that are absent in the other. The ‘worst’ that legally recognising same-sex marriages will do is reduce social stigma, and stigma is NOT a sufficient reason to deny marriage rights. There are valid arguments against allowing these groups to marry (that do not apply to marriage between consenting homosexual adults), and thus the slippery slope does not exist. But do please note that ‘the status quo’ is NOT an argument ;)

It is my firm belief that society should be inclusive, not exclusive. As such, where no strong opposing argument exists, we must extend the same rights and respect to all citizens of our nation.
For this reason, I support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.