According to Statistics New Zealand, 273 Kiwi couples legalised their relationship in a civil union, of which 73 per cent [199] were same-sex. A further 65 civil unions were registeted to overseas residents.

The 199 same-sex civil unions entered into by Kiwi couples resident in New Zealand in 2010 constitutes 0.9% of the total unions (marriages + civil unions) entered into by NZ resident Kiwi couples in 2010.

Since the Civil Union Act came into force six years ago, and taking account of the growth in New Zealand population each year, the number of civil unions has progressively dropped each year from a high of 430 in 2006.

At the current rate of decline of civil unions entered into each year and the rate of dissolution of such relations, one wonders how long this ‘institution’ will go the way of the dinosaurs – a mysterious extinction that will catch us all by surprise.

DEBORAH RUSSELL, (“Marriage should be for all”, October 21, Dominion Post) says the state has no business in the marriage game, but then argues that the state should redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage.

Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.

If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for tose children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. Onn average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.

Russell then argues that denying same-sex marriage is “discriminatory” and “reinforces the power of traditional churches by endorcing their morality”.

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a wholelot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminated against since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCaw can’t play for the Silver Ferns.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5849413/Gay-community-cannot-redefine-marriage

And secondly, marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage.

And this is where Deborah Russell’s opinion gets really interesting. She says marriage should be for “three or more, whatever”. By allowing only gay marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygymous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), incestuous, man/boy, or bestial unions. – if all that counts is love and commitment. Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, all types of sexual activity could become permissible.

Russell claims research shows that 60 per cent of voters favour same-sex marriage – referring to a Research NZ poll of 500 people recently. However, polling commissioned by Family First of 1,000 NZ’ers through independent research company Curia Market Research in March found 52% of respondents support defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with 42% opposed and 6% unsure or refusing to say. The only similarity in the polls was that females were more in favour of same-sex marriage than males.

All this suggests that there is debate to be had on this issue and John Key, Phil Goff and fellow politicians are right to progress slowly on this issue rather than capitulate to strong lobbying to change the definition. As Phil Goff argued at our recent Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

Interestingly, there is actually very little demand for same-sex marriage by homosexuals. In the Netherlands where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001, studies have shown that only around 4 per cent of Dutch homosexuals have gotten married during the first five years of legalisation. The demand for civil unions in NZ have been similarly negligible, despite claims by the government at the time of passing the legislation that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders were being discriminated against.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone. Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’. Russell is correct. Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage.

The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.
Bob McCoskrie is National Director of Family First NZ, and married Tina 22 years ago in a Methodist Church.

References:

Gay Community cannot redefine marriage – Opinion – Bob McCoskrie

[Note: Dom Post on line has changed heading from originally submittd by BM - "Marriage about purpose, not rights]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5849413/Gay-community-cannot-redefine-marriage

Also see:

Gay, straight, bi-marriage should be for all – Opinion -Deborah Russell

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824391/Gay-straight-bi-marriage-should-be-for-all

The Society is most grateful to the Wellington-based gay rights activist, Calum Bennachie, for producing a full transcript of the video – excerpts of which are reproduced below to address the question under consideration. Mr Bennachie prepared the transcript (in the public domain) as part of a voluminous submission to Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”), in which he successfully sought, on behalf of Human Rights Action Group (Wellington), to have this video banned.

Excerpts from Living Word Video Gay Rights/Special Rights

(Note: The video has now been classified “unrestricted” by the Board following a unanimous Court of Appeal decision to quash the flawed High Court decision that had upheld the ban by the Board).

Lou Sheldon: "Homosexuals have equal rights under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, (CUT TO A SCENE OF TWO WHITE MEN SEATED UNDER A TREE, HOLDING EACH OTHER. ONE IS DRESSED IN A SINGLET AND SHORTS, THE OTHER IN SHORTS ONLY) and the State Constitutions of every State in which they reside. (CUT TO A SCENE OF TWO WHITE WOMEN LINE DANCING WITH EACH OTHER). But the issue here today is special rights. A special category of protection. (CUT TO LOU SHELDON WITH BLACK MEN BEHIND HIM. THE TITLE SAYS "LOU SHELDON CHAIRMAN, TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION"). They want to be elevated from a behaviour based lifestyle, to a true minority status that would then give them special rights."

Ralph Reed: [EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN COALITION]. "No one should (FADE IN TITLE "RALPH REED… ") have special rights or privileges, or minority status because of their sexual behaviour. (FADE OUT TITLE) We don’t have it for people who are polygamists, we don’t have it for people who have affairs on their wive’s or husband’s …"Peter Marshall: [CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIAN]. Voice over: "If you give, homosexuals special rights in America, first of all you open a Pandora’s Box … to every deviant behaviour group logically being able to line up and bang on the same door, and insist on, special rights for themselves. You have totally destroyed, … really, … a realistic understanding of Human Rights."

Edwin Meese: [FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL]. "Homosexuals [in ordinary conduct] today, ah, should not be discriminated against, and generally are not. Ah, they’re entitled to the same constitutional rights of, ah, free speech; ah, if anything, ah, they have used, ah, free speech to the point, ah, where their conduct is [probably] offensive, ah, to most people."

For Full Transcript of GayRight/Special Rights video go to:

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Gay_rights_Special_rights.htm

For Full Transcript of the other Living Word video AIDS: What You Haven’t Been Told go to:

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Aids.htm

"A clear majority of the American public opposes same-sex marriage," says Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute. "And yet this opposition, though real, is by-and-large silent. So striking is this general silence, that one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for it."

To read complete article go to:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/KurGayM.htm

Also see:

Gay Marriage — and Marriage
Sam Shulman

"…In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two women must play the man. "Play" here means travesty–burlesque. Not that their love is a travesty; but their participation in a ceremony that apes the marriage bond, with all that goes into it, is a travesty. Their taking-over of the form of this crucial and fragile connection of opposites is a travesty of marriage’s purpose of protecting, actually and symbolically, the woman who enters into marriage with a man. To burlesque that purpose weakens those protections, and is essentially and profoundly anti-female."

To read complete article go to:

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.php

By EMMA PAGE and JENNIFER DANN

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3585006a11,00.html

Marriage celebrants are opting out of conducting civil unions because barely one couple a day has elected to have the alternative ceremony since its introduction almost a year ago.

Only 362 couples have chosen civil unions, compared with 15,683 marriages, since the Civil Union Act – which allows same-sex and heterosexual couples to gain legal standing on a par with marriage – became law last April.

Only 62 heterosexual, 145 gay and 153 lesbian couples have had civil unions.

Internal Affairs figures show the majority of civil unions are occurring in the main cities but the ceremony’s popularity in places like Taupo – where two civil unions have taken place – is limited.

Most celebrants contacted by the Sunday Star-Times last week had yet to receive an inquiry about civil unions, let alone conduct a ceremony.

"It’s quite interesting, after all the predictions we’d be inundated with a flood of gay marriages," said one.

More than 600 marriage celebrants signed up to officiate at civil unions after Internal Affairs officials sent out a letter asking if they would be interested in dual registration.

Porirua celebrant Victoria Wilks said quite a few of her colleagues would not bother to re-apply this year because there had been so little interest.

Wellington celebrant and security consultant Trevor Morley said: "The government’s desire to be politically correct has created a lot of unnecessary beauracracy.

"A hell of a lot of time, effort and money has been spent establishing civil celebrants. All for an extremely small minority. Clearly that minority had a voice far in excess of its numbers."

The 62-year-old former policeman had renewed his certificate this year because it didn’t cost him anything and he still hoped to conduct a civil ceremony.

Labour MP Georgina Beyer said the number of people choosing civil unions was encouraging, and there was no need to compare numbers with marriage.

"Marriage has had a couple of centuries – if not thousands of years – to establish itself," she said. "It’s not a race, it’s about human relationships."

Victoria University sociology senior lecturer Dr Allison Kirkman said one reason for the low turnout could be that couples were still waiting and planning. Another possibility was that they saw the availability of civil union as symbolically important rather than wanting to do it themselves.

Other groups might feel that civil union was not for them because it was not equal to marriage.

Civil unions have proved more stable than marriage in the short-term statistics. There have been no applications for the dissolution of civil unions. Two couples have switched from marriage to civil unions.