GayNZ.com reader Scott Stevens isn't buying the Maxim Institute's line that NZ doesn't need Civil Unions because the status quo is working just fine. Its been quite interesting over the last several months watching the various points of view with respect to the ongoing Civil Unions debate. We have had the Enough is Enough rally courtesy of Pastor Tamaki and the Destiny Church, and we've had Archbishop Vercoe expounding his vision of a Homosexual free New Zealand. These have been vocal utterances which have made the news and generated a bit of public opinion. However, off to the side we have the Maxim Institute. Presenting a much more polished image of suited degreed professionals banding together to produce what is apparently legitimate research. It is one thing for Pastor Tamaki to march down Lambton Quay claiming that god will smite all the homosexual sinners despite his infinite compassion. It is another thing for an organisation to claim research is legitimate when it clearly isn't. Firstly, let us cover an assumption: Maxim's aim is to promote the family. Their research states that the family unit of mum, dad and x kids is the most stable and effective way of raising our next generation. There is no room for same sex couples, and the prospect of solo parenting is iffy at best. Solo parented children are likely to do worse at school, have a bad start to life, experiment with drugs and commit suicide. Maxim states that this happens 'on average' more often in broken homes. The bed rock of society is therefore missing, and that bedrock is the family. Despite the fact that one out of three marriages fail indicating that they do not perhaps offer the completely stable environment Maxim believes. Now, to matters at hand. Over the last week I have been communicating with both Amanda McGrail, and Scott McMurray of the institute as to the validity of some of the claims asserted on Maxims website. My first question, I thought was the simplest. I asked Maxim in which peer reviewed journals they had been published in, and thus made available for critique. I have been trained as a scientist. To me it seems that if you are as committed to your research as Maxim appears to be, then there should be no problems in putting it forward for inclusion within a journal such as New Zealand Sociology. It seems to me, even though human sciences was a minor in my degree, that an organization making claims stating that society is more or less on the fast track to Armageddon should publish their findings. Unfortunately, according to Mr McMurray, Maxims idea of peer review is to have their monographs, books and research 'reviewed' by those sympathetic to their cause. Mr McMurray stated in his response (and I quote this verbatim): "Maxim publishes its own books which include reviews received from peers or other significant commentators. Our other articles (monographs and books) are reviewed and critiqued in a variety of ways". Which makes one wonder as to who 'significant' commentators are, and what exactly constitutes a 'variety' of ways. I am sure you will agree that there is a fundamental difference in getting something published by your own press, and publishing by having it referred in a recognised social science journal. Could it be that perhaps Maxims research isn't actually recognised by the social science community? Could it be that Maxim has the same difficulty getting published in a reputable journal that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has? Surely not, after all Maxim is a legitimate think tank is it not? It is curious however that Maxim does not have any sociologists or psychologists on staff, or maybe its just me who believes that an organisation which is actively commenting on such issues should have employees qualified to do so. The second part of this monograph relates to a rather curious statement I saw on Maxims website. Once again, I quote verbatim "Hospital visitation rights and the ability to be named next-of-kin are frequently claimed to be areas of discrimination against de facto and same-sex couples used to justify support for the Relationships Bill". However, Maxim has found that there is no discrimination, and that the Bill has no bearing on these issues. The policy of 16 hospitals was presented which showed that none of the hospitals discriminate against de facto or same-sex partners -- existing laws and health codes prevent them from doing so already. This immediately piqued my interest. I asked myself several questions, which hospitals were these? Why limit yourself to hospitals when you can also take into account hospices? Is a sample size of 16 able to be generalised to the entire nation? So, I asked. Maxim stated that after calling 11 public and 5 private hospitals that they had found that the rights of Gay couples would not be discriminated against due to the Human Rights Act. In fact, you may be pleased to know that a Heterosexual couple and a Homosexual couple have the same rights in terms of next of kin. Amanda said she was pleased, and informed me that if there is any discrimination it is a violation of the Human Rights Act. You can name your same sex partner as next of kin and the hospital (maybe) will respect that wish. So, discrimination doesn't exist, we can all go home and sleep soundly. But there was a nagging question in the back of my mind regarding such things as who has the right to speak for me if I can't. After all, if I had a long term partner, would my family respect his right to speak on my behalf? I asked Amanda McGrail to clarify what would happen if someone had to 'pull the plug'. The response was quite interesting. Apparently, it comes down to individual hospital policy. Some hospitals said no one person has authority, some said that the patient could nominate (assuming the patient is able to) someone as 'contact person' or 'family'. Its worth noting that these policies can vary from ward to ward also. It all seems rosy so far, once again, my hypothetical partner (assuming I can) can be nominated as next of kin in some but not all hospitals. But heres the gotcha, and I quote directly from Amanda McGrail's email “Usually though it is something that the medical team discuss with all the family, not just one person”. With all the family? But, wait a minute – my hypothetical partner isn't a part of my family. Not according to Maxim anyway. I obviously don't have a wife, and I'm obviously not married. Now, of course I could have a Civil Union and be able to legally prove that I count Mr Right as a legitimate part of my family. But, I'm not allowed to according to Maxim. A Civil Union degrades marriage and the family and the statutory references bill doesn't change any of my ambiguous existing rights, so no joy there either. So, given that I am most likely unconscious in the hospital after being hit by a bus on one of my training rides, hypothetical Mr. Right is scrapping with my parents who don't accept him. He has no legal leg to stand on because we don't have a Civil Union certificate. But its OK because as Amanda McGrail pointed out helpfully "Again the major point is that the Relationships Bill will do nothing to change the status quo, which is actually working fine." Scott Stevens - 13th October 2004