ACT MP Stephen Franks thinks same-sex couples need to prove their worthiness to society before they should be allowed a civil union. Franks, who sat on the select committee deliberating the bill, has labelled it "hollow" because he says it doesn't define what a civil union is. "There is no indication of the commitment or qualities that merit State favour," he says. "The Marriage Act is also hollow - but that is more understandable as marriage is well defined in custom. The Civil Union Bill mimics the solemnization of marriages without that cultural and historical definition." He says that as a civil union ceremony would be a symbolic state endorsement of same-sex relationships, which some in society are opposed to, then the state needs to be able to justify the worthiness of such relationships before they infringe on the freedoms of those who oppose them. Franks wanted a clause inserted into the Civil Union Bill stating that the bill was not an endorsement of same-sex relationships, but he was voted down. As a result, he has said he won't be voting for the bill. Franks comments don't wash with Jim Peron, director of the Institute for Liberal Values, who thinks Franks' assertions about the customary definition of marriage are ludicrous, as no opponent of same-sex marriage seems to be able to agree on what marriage is, other than that it should exclude gays. Peron is convinced that Franks is taking a conservative position whilst attempting to use liberal language to justify it. "It's silly to clutter bills with clauses saying the legislation doesn't do something unless there is something in the bill that gives the indication it might do that," he says. "If Labour played this game we'd laugh at them. Imagine a bill cutting personal income taxes. Labour comes along and demands clauses that say the bill will not force poor people to starve. "Of course the clause would be rejected since nothing in the bill indicates a desire to force the poor to starve. If Labour then said: "See we are for lower taxes but we can't support this legislation without the clause attached." We'd know it was a false excuse used to justify their Left wing position. And the Franks clause is a false excuse used to justify his conservative stance."
Credit: GayNZ.com News Staff
First published: Sunday, 28th November 2004 - 12:00pm