While sitting down and reading the Dominion Post this morning, I came across an opinion piece by Gordon Copeland - this can be read here.
Now, to start with, my opinions on the matter are pretty clear - I've already expressed them in a few previous blog posts (here's the most recent), but for some reason this particular piece really got to me.
First, the most obvious points that stand out.
For a start, as the article points out, there's something very hypocritical about Mr. Copeland making the argument that civil unions have the same rights as married couples when he voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Act he quotes in the article. Secondly, as he well mentions, the legislations aren't the same. The most obvious difference is the adoption rights. This gets to me - if there are children who don't have any parents, surely two people who love each other, regardless of gender, are better than having nobody?
Finally, and this to me seems the most obvious point - gay people cannot get married. Mr. Copeland makes the argument that they don't need to - that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples under the legislation. But to an extent, this still creates the idea of a second-class citizenry.
He makes several arguements on this - such as women's rights to vote, arguing that we didn't do this "by redefining men to include women", but this wasn't what the legislation was about - we instead opened the definition of 'voting citizen' to include women, not having separate titles, 'voting men' and 'voting women' and having different legislation for each of them.
And then he makes the argument that " that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men". This argument falls short for a number of reasons - what about those unions that either choose to not or cannot have children? What about those civil unions that have children already, through children from prior marriages or invitro fertilisation and surrogacy (both of which are legal?).
On top of this, I believe that granting true equality in the law will help our society be more tolerant towards other people. While reporting can be difficult, especially when it comes to suicide in New Zealand, GLBTI students have more problems with bullying, are more likely to attempt suicide, and are more likely to take risks when it comes to sex (1). We need to be making societal change to make young GLBTI students feel safer, and starting at the top by doing as much as possible to legitimise these relationships, while not a solution, would be a step in the right direction.
At least in one point, Mr. Copeland and I agree. We both believe that marriage is an important cornerstone of our society, and that it is the best way to raise children. The difference is, while he sees no reason that same sex couples should be granted this right, I see no reason that it shouldn't.
(1) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2987987/Suicide-risk-for-gay-bisexual-youth
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Jeanne Manford
A very quick post.
I consider myself extremely lucky. I live in a time and place where GLBTI people have a lot of rights and general protection under the law. I know that it's not perfect, that GLBTI citizens in Western civilisations still have a long way to go, but it's a lot better than it was 30 years ago.
GLBTI younger than 40 have a lot to thank for those who fought homophobia in law and society in the 70's and 80's. Jeanne Manford, the US founder of PFLAG is one of those who we owe a lot to.
The below video comes from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. Worth a quick look at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)