Editorial -August 14, 2012

For better or worse

Predictably, those who support Labour MP Louisa Wall's Marriage Amendment Bill, which seeks to extend the same right heterosexuals have to marry to homosexual couples, have resorted to the tired old tactic of labelling opponents as homophobic. Some might well be, but it is possible to oppose gay marriage on genuine grounds, with no accompanying wish to see homosexuals stoned in the street or banished into ghettoes.

Not for the first time we are witnessing the sad phenomenon of those seeking tolerance displaying greater intolerance than their so-called persecutors. We seem doomed, yet again, to make a decision armed with emotion, ignorance and fear rather than reason.

Let it be said at the outset that this newspaper has no issue with homosexuality. The writer has been accused of homophobia in the past, and suspects that he very soon will be again, but the charge is false. This newspaper believes that everyone, whatever their sexual orientation, has the right to live in freedom and peace, free to pursue health, wealth and happiness, and without fear of persecution or discrimination. The only corollary to that is that no person has the right to express his or her sexuality at the expense of others. One draws the line at paedophilia, for example.

And there, in part, lies the rub with gay marriage. Some critics oppose it on the basis that it will open a door they would rather see remain closed, namely the legalising of child adoption by homosexual couples. There is no doubt at all that legalising marriage between same sex couples would be closely followed by calls for the right to adopt, as a further expression of entitlement to the full range of civil rights and privileges, but why wouldn't the door open wider than that? Why would even smaller minorities than those members of the homosexual community who wish to legally marry not be emboldened to seek similar recognition of their proclivities? The only answer anyone has come up with to discount that scenario so far has been that such proclivities are "not normal". This is where the debate descends into farce.

We have people claiming that homosexuality is normal, and that other specific penchants are not. The latter would include marriage between siblings and parents/children. Society does not condone the marrying of brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, probably for reasons that have more to do with the realities of biology than increasingly unfashionable religious beliefs, but to glibly assure that such unions, and polygamy, would remain outside the law because they are "not normal" is hardly a satisfactory response. Many do not believe that homosexuality is normal.

Interestingly, we seem to have no difficulty in rejecting age-old practices of some cultures that have become established here via immigration. The day might be coming when this changes, but for the time being at least New Zealanders show no sign of favouring the likes of female circumcision or the honour killing of daughters who bring their family name into disrepute. Those practices are regarded as normal in some societies, so if "normality" is the standard, why should they not be tolerated here?

The debate over whether homosexuality is learned or genetically dictated will no doubt continue for some time, and at this point is irrelevant, but however they might be scorned, those who oppose this Bill have the right to express their views, whether they yearn to be part of a society that pays greater regard than New Zealand currently does to Christian principles or whether they simply see it as the top of a slippery slope. Experience elsewhere suggests the latter.

The most frightening aspect of all this might be Ms Wall's assurance that what has happened in other countries where gay marriage has been legalised won't happen here. Ms Wall has joined a very long line of politicians who don't have the first idea what their brainchild will do to society, and probably don't care. She has no idea whatsoever how legalising gay marriage might change New Zealand society.

Experience elsewhere suggests that there will be collateral damage, which is hardly surprising. It is one thing to give one sector of society a specific right, but in many cases, perhaps all, giving a right with one hand is inevitably accompanied by removing one from someone else with the other. Family First NZ has already compiled a list, hardly likely to be an exhaustive one, which Ms Wall clearly hasn't thought of doing.

Family First has cited a Canadian court ruling that marriage officials must marry homosexuals, a US Army threat to court martial Army chaplains who object to homosexual unions on religious or conscience grounds, and a UK politician's call for churches to be prohibited from performing marriage ceremonies if they refuse gay couples. There seems to be no interest in forcing churches to marry those who are turned away on other grounds, such as being unbaptised.

A US judge has reportedly ruled against a Christian retreat that refused to allow a homosexual civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, finding that the constitution "allows some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals". That should ring a very loud alarm bell. Should homosexuals really have the right to marry at the expense of the presumably sacrosanct right of others to freedom of religious expression?

Publicly challenging the "homosexualist agenda" in Sweden is reportedly punishable by imprisonment, a provision that the European Court of Human Rights does not regard as constituting any violation of rights. Legislators in Kansas are considering law that would force churches to host same sex weddings.

We haven't reached anything like that stage here, but the signs aren't encouraging. Labour MP Charles Chauvel has reportedly asked the anti-gay marriage organisation Right to Life for a copy of its rules, so he can satisfy himself that it has a mandate to take part in the debate over the Marriage Amendment Bill. We have reached a parlous state when an MP, in this case one with a very personal interest in the Bill in question, feels entitled to decide who may and who may not speak. Another example of those seeking tolerance being the least tolerant of all.

Mr Chauvel has apparently not felt moved to question the mandate of Bill supporters.

It is not as though homosexuals are denied the rights of other New Zealand citizens. (The right to adopt children can be excepted, given that that particular "right" is not automatically enjoyed by anyone, whatever their sexuality.) They have the right to join in civil unions, one step short of marriage perhaps but a degree of state and social recognition that should suffice. To go further would be to raise the spectre of forcibly stripping others of rights that are more important, such as freedom of religious expression.

Ms Wall can assure us until the cows come home that the rights of others are in no danger, but the world outside New Zealand tells a different story. At some point her political career will end and she will move on, while her legacy will remain with the people she is supposedly serving for ever. Hopefully the politicians who vote on our behalf in the fullness of time will realise that supporting the Bill will give a minority of a minority something they want at great potential expense to others, but the odds on that seem to be lengthening by the day.