Search Browse On This Day Map Quotations Timeline Research Free Datasets Remembered About Contact

Backgrounder to the failed Marriage (Gender Clarification) BIll

Wed 7 Dec 2005 In: Features

The organisers of the Campaign For Civil Unions background The Marriage (Gender Clarification) Bill, scheduled to go before Parliament today. What is the Bill? This Bill is a Member's Bill introduced in the last term of Parliament by Larry Baldock, now taken over by United Future's Gordon Copeland. It is due to be tabled in Parliament today, Wednesday, 7 December 2005, at which time MPs will consider whether to send the Bill to a select committee. The Bill does two main things: It proposes to amend the Marriage Act 1955 to define marriage as "between one man and one woman". It also specifically states that "a person may not marry a person of the same gender" and prevents the recognition of same-sex marriages from overseas. It proposes to amend the anti-discrimination protections in the Bill of Rights to say that measures which "assist" or "advance" marriage do not amount to discrimination. What is the Campaign's position on the Bill? The two different parts of the Bill raise different issues. The proposed amendment to the definition of marriage generally confirms the legal reality and is therefore unnecessary. Our Court of Appeal in the Quilter case ruled that, in New Zealand law, marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Therefore the proposed amendment does no more than restate the status quo explicitly in legislation. The Campaign regrets that some of our MPs find it necessary to attempt to restate and reinforce the discrimination against same-sex couples by excluding them from a form of relationship recognition open to others. The proposal to exempt measures which assist or advance marriage from anti-discrimination protections is, however, unacceptable. Freedom from discrimination is one of the cornerstones of our society and the country has reinforced this principle of equality in our Bill of Rights. The Attorney-General has already warned Parliament that this Bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and an unjustified breach of freedom from discrimination. The recent debates about civil unions show that there are no objectively justifiable reasons for treating married and (same-sex) civil union relationships differently. This Bill is a smokescreen which tries to undermine the measures taken to remove the discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. The promoters of the Bill are simply trying to, once again, raise the arguments about the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships that were firmly rejected by our Parliament when it passed the Civil Union Act. This attempt to introduce a specific exception to the freedom from discrimination is also unsound in legal principle. Presently our laws insist any specific departures from the rights and freedoms in our Bill of Rights be scrutinised closely and be objectively justified. This attempt to amend the Bill of Rights would mean these measures would escape this scrutiny - which the Campaign considers is especially abominable because these measures lack any rational basis. What can you do? We are confident this misconceived attempt to promote inequality and to take our country back to pre-Civil Union days does not have the support of most of our MPs. However, you can express your opposition to the Bill by writing a short note or email to your local MP or any of the other MPs who will be voting on the Bill. Letters can be sent free of charge to: Parliament Buildings, Wellington or for full contact details of MPs, see the link below. Prepared by: Civil Unions Campaign | Campaign for Civil Unions (Auckland) Inc. Campaign for Civil Unions - 7th December 2005    

Credit: Campaign for Civil Unions

First published: Wednesday, 7th December 2005 - 12:00pm

Rights Information

This page displays a version of a article that was automatically harvested before the website closed. All of the formatting and images have been removed and some text content may not have been fully captured correctly. The article is provided here for personal research and review and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of If you have queries or concerns about this article please email us