Garth George: More to this bill than appeasing such a tiny minority

COMMENT

The opposition to the Civil Union Bill and its associated Omnibus Bill that is intended to redefine relationships will not go away.

And it won't go away because most New Zealanders are uncomfortable with the idea of giving an unnecessary legitimacy to same-sex relationships.

Which is not surprising, since we are told that there are only 10,000 New Zealanders in such relationships - less than a minuscule 0.25 per cent of our entire population.

And that alone makes thinking people wonder why any Government would propose what is certain to be a highly unpopular law just to appease the desires of such an insignificant number of people.

Especially when there is no need to give same-sex couples a status in law similar to that of married couples, because a few minor changes to existing law would overcome the most often trotted out excuses, such as definitions of next of kin, property and inheritance rights and so on.

None of which is, of course, the real reason for proposing this fundamental change in how society is structured and has been since time immemorial. Obviously the agenda goes much deeper than that, and a quick study of our more recent legislative history would indicate that it is but a first step towards giving same-sex unions full equivalence with heterosexual marriage.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the spearhead of opposition to the Civil Union Bill has come into the hands of the Destiny Church, whose leaders have never learned the lesson that it's not what you say but how you say it that counts.

But at least that church has exhibited the courage of its biblical convictions and has sunk a lot of money, time and talent into opposing this destructive legislation.

It is taking a huge amount of criticism, most of it undeserved vilification, but that is to be expected. And what little I know of church leader Brian Tamaki suggests he will not be deterred.

It's a pity that Destiny has received so little support from other church groups and denominations, many of whose members share Destiny's view of the Civil Union Bill.

But it is not surprising: few Christians have the courage to stand up for what they believe in the face of the viciousness, bile and hatred spat at them by the liberals, and particularly the heterophobic homosexual community, which is geared to react at a moment's notice to even the mildest criticism of its lifestyle and aspirations.

And even more do they fear being similarly blackguarded by those they might, in their innocence, see as their own - churchmen and women of other (or even their own) denominations, who have fallen for the liberal dogma which has so subtly and successfully infected so many churches.

Look at poor Whakahuihui Vercoe, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, who gave from his heart his view of homosexuality and came under such virulent attack that he tried to back down.

But the criticisms of those who see the Civil Union Bill as destructive of society that cause me the most amusement are the ones presented by academics - always short on empirical evidence and long on dogmatic supposition.

The latest of these appeared on this page on Monday, written by Emma Davies, who - and this is hilarious - lectures on children and families in the Auckland University of Technology's institute of public policy.

She began by suggesting that organisations such as Destiny Church "emerge orc-like from the slime of our deepest fears ... " followed that with a couple of throwaway lines about Islamic suicide bombers, then suggested that "a religious fundamentalist cult is alive and well in our backyard".

Gee whiz. Does Dr Davies not know that there have been religious fundamentalist cults alive and well in New Zealand almost since the place was settled? And that the word "fundamentalist" is merely an epithet used to try to discredit those who are by nature or teaching simply conservative?

We should be concerned, she says, that a "minority with intolerant homophobic views was beamed through our television sets as a few thousand people marching in step and shouting slogans of hatred ... "

Surely those who have to use adjectives such as "homophobic" and nouns such as "bigot", "hatred" and "intolerance" to discredit their opposition qualify to have those epithets attached to them, too.

And perhaps the fact that a so-called "racial harmony rally" backed by local and national politicians a day or so later attracted a mere 200 escaped Dr Davies' attention.

The fact is that those of us who oppose the Civil Union Bill, seeing it as destructive of the very foundations of society as we know it, are numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

And I would bet a year's salary that if a referendum were held tomorrow on whether the bill should be passed, the answer would be a resounding "no" by a huge majority.

Because this is not a human rights issue, not a moral issue, not a religious issue: it is simply a physical issue. Marriage - as the Australians have lately laid down by law - is an institution confined to a man and a woman, initiated to ensure the continuation of the human race by the procreation of children in a structured environment. Same-sex relationships don't qualify.

It's as simple as that.

* Email Garth George