Editorial: Time right to pass bill for civil unions

Opinion

Who would be an MP on days like this, when a subject as fraught as the Civil Union Bill comes to its crucial "conscience" vote? It is one thing to take a personal position on an issue such as same-sex marriage but MPs must always be conscious that they alone are deciding these matters on behalf of four million people, and that on subjects such as this an MP is no better briefed than anybody else. There is no department of state to advise on the moral implications of recognising a form of marriage for homosexual couples, only the human rights apparatus to argue for non-discrimination and MPs know that public feeling runs deeper than that.

When they come to vote today, they will be acutely aware that when the public has been given a say in other places lately, the idea of sanctioning same-sex marriage has been roundly rejected. In the United States elections 11 states had a referendum on the subject and all 11 voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions. In Australia this week the Institute of Family Studies reported strong public opposition to same-sex marriage and adoption rights proposed in laws that were promoted by both the Government and the Labor Party as recently as August. Those proposals are now unlikely to proceed.

In this country public opinion polls have supported the civil unions proposal, although the Government is leaving nothing to chance. Firmly resisting calls for a referendum, Labour wants the bill passed by Christmas and safely out of the public mind in election year. Strictly speaking, the bill is not a party issue but the way the votes were falling for today's crucial second reading it looks likely to be supported by all but a few Labour MPs and Greens and opposed by all but a few in National, Act, NZ First and United Future. The numbers are so finely balanced that any equivocating MP might find the issue decided on his or her vote. The pressure on them must be immense.

Whatever they do, they ought not to treat the bill as less important simply because an intended companion bill, giving various rights to civil union couples, has been held back for the implications for de facto couples to be ironed out. The Civil Union Bill remains the crucial test. It might go no further than to create a relationship in law to be known as a civil union but the only reason for doing so, as every MP knows, is to eventually extend the rights of marriage to this newly defined relationship. This is the time to decide whether this country ought to create an institution akin to marriage for couples of the same or opposite sex.

But MPs should not pretend, as some in Labour are heard to say, that civil unions are not akin to marriage. By proposing a legal distinction in name only, the bill's proponents have satisfied neither those concerned for the status of marriage nor those who want equal status for homosexual couples. One side fears civil unions would soon become indistinguishable from marriage; the other side fears civil unions would always be a kind of second class marriage. The former seems more likely.

Just as most people make no distinction between those of their acquaintance who had a church wedding and those who were married in a registry office, people are unlikely in general conversation to distinguish between couples who wed under the Marriage Act and those who have a civil union. Chances are we would refer to all such couples as "married".

Would that matter? Yes, if you believe marriage would be undermined if it was not preserved for heterosexuals. No, if you believe people in a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex deserve to have their love and commitment recognised by law and most of the rights and obligations that come with the commitment. Parliament should pass this bill, conscious of all the social implications. It will be a landmark for human rights and its time has arrived.