One of the hallmarks of a fundamentally weak argument is in the way that its adherents defend it. Indeed it was Frederick the Great of Prussia who uttered the famous line “He who defends everything defends nothing”. Basically, sometimes you have to give a little for the greater good of the cause. One of the things I find constantly intriguing about Maxim are the rather contradictory statements that can be found in most of their public literature and articles. And what intrigues me even more is the strategy employed by the Institute in defending what are essentially indefensible arguments – hence the Frederick the Great quote. Examples? Well, fortunately for us it just so happens that I've been conversing with it's boss, Scott McMurray who was only to willing to supply me with some material. Several Weeks ago, an opinion piece was published in the NZ Herald by Mr. McMurray stating why Civil Unions (and one assumes, the Statutory References Bill) should never become law. In his article, Mr McMurray asserts that, once again the traditional Western Nuclear family represents the bedrock of society. A family must contain a mother and a father, as that is the only way to ensure that future generations think about their partners and duly carry out responsibilities to their families in the ‘right' fashion. Central to Mr McMurrays' argument is his view in which he asserts: “Promoters claim it is a right to have loving and committed relationships recognised. However, this isn't the role of law. If it is, why are so many other loving and committed relationships missing out?” This raises two very interesting points. Firstly, if it is not the role of the law to recognise relationships, then why is marriage recognised? Secondly is Mr McMurrays' statement of “If it is why are so many other loving and committed relationships missing out”. I am not sure what point Mr McMurray is attempting to make; given his previous statement it would seem that perhaps other forms of caring loving relationships should in fact be recognised. Or, perhaps the purpose of marriage is for something other than codifying a loving committed relationship and those two things are mutually exclusive. The waters however become muddier the further we drill down into the document. It's not up to the law to recognise relationships, however it is logical and indeed “Common sense to make distinctions in the law between relationships that are different”. Spot the problem? I'll give you a hint. If its not up to the law to recognise relationships, then why is it up to the law to make distinctions between them? But wait he goes on to say that, “Marriage is given special legal status because it is a public good”. How can Maxim assert that marriage has a special legal status while saying that the law should have nothing to do with recognition of relationships? If the law should have nothing to do with it, then how does it recognise that one relationship is ‘distinct' to another? I also would point out that all of this was found in just six short paragraphs. Never before have so many been confused by so few in such a short amount of time (indeed, this if anything is not an example of Maxims ‘Finest hour') The next point Mr McMurray makes is that the key difference between Marriage and de facto relationships is that “De facto couples have not made a life long commitment to each other; partners can separate one week and form a new relationship the next”. Married people can't do that. You have to separate and remain single for the rest of your life. Granted you can't enter a legally recognised relationship until a divorce is finalised – there is however nothing stopping you from moving on. In my father's case, being a paragon of efficiency he had actually started a new relationship before the old one (the marriage with Mum) had finished. Sorry Mr McMurray, married couples are just as capable of moving into a new relationship quickly. For a Homosexual relationship however, the rules are different. We can apparently make life long commitments to each other, unlike de facto couples. For a gay couple the key problem is that “Same sex couples can not create and nurture children”. He's quite right about creation of children. Unless there is something that future ‘Mr Right' is withholding from me, I find it highly unlikely that I will ever hear the phrase “Honey, I'm late”. What about the second part though? Are gay people incapable of nurturing? Remember that Mr McMurray is stating this as absolute fact, yet has not provided a single shred of evidence to support his claim – which is hardly surprising. I would direct him to studies undertaken by the American Psychological Association regarding care of children in Homosexual families, but unfortunately the evidence does not support his claim (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html). Given the above, how then did Maxim allow their director, Bruce Logan to publicly say in yet another opinion piece that “Above all, human beings are wired to exist in interdependent relationships” when clearly Mr McMurray is saying that at least in the case of de facto relationships they are not? Further how can we reconcile Mr McMurrays' view that “the underlying purpose of the bills is to endorse same sex relationships and grant them equivalence to marriage”, if as Mr Logan says we are all wired to exist in an interdependent relationship? If given Mr Logans statement then what exactly is the problem in recognising something that even Maxims director has admitted to being something fundamental in the human condition? Is this all in fact moot, because as Mr McMurray points out, none of these relationships should be recognised under the law anyway? Maxim is apparently well funded, and I have been told they are well organised. These two factors do not always lead to victory, particularly if the arguments and ideas being put forward are intellectually impoverished and contradictory. Maxim cannot carry the day as it were by responding as Mr McMurray did to my last email with accusations of trying to twist Maxim's words, and then not responding to any of my questions. I say to Mr McMurray now, as I said to him in the last email I sent (to which he has not replied) that the words I am using are his. The ideas and beliefs I am applying are in fact his and his organisation's. I cannot help it if Maxim believe that I am twisting their words, all I am doing is pointing out some of the logical contradictions and flawed reasoning found therein. So to Maxim, if what I say does not make sense it is only because of the position you have put forward and your defence of inherently contradictory and indefensible premises. So, we leave as we began with a quote, once again from the long dead Prussian mentioned at the beginning of this article. I think it sums up Maxim quite nicely, but I'll let you be the judge. "If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks" – Frederick the Great Scott Stevens - 22nd October 2004