It's a shame that his Marriage (Gender Clarification) Bill isn't named "the Defence of Marriage Bill," otherwise we could use the acronym above. However, there seems little doubt that the MGCB is based on the US and Australian federal Defence of Marriage Acts, which the US Christian Right and Republican Congress contrived to ban federal recognition of same-sex marriages. However, there's a question mark over whether it really does that. In the case of the United States, there's the Romer v Evans [1996] US Supreme Court decision, which overturned a Colorado antigay citizens initiated referendum result that gutted its state antidiscrimination law of LGBT coverage. The US Supreme Court might decide that Romer also applies to same-sex marriages, and strike down federal and state anti-SSM legislation. Then there's the Federal Marriage Amendment, which died in the US Senate. Australia decided to pander to its Christian Right, and banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage, although Tasmania still has civil union legislation akin to ours- although it is the only Australian state or territory that currently does so. Typical, anyway. It's the New Zealand Christian Right in dependency mode once more, imitating its US fundamentalist counterparts. What about New Zealand? I suspect that Labour won't indulge its confidence and supply partner on this private members bill. New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution, and this would have to pass Bill of Rights muster. Granted, the Bill of Rights is unentrenched, but the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General would still have to justify it if they proceeded. It would probably get support from the more backward members of National and ACT, although whether Labour's tiny pocket of civil union opponents would bother is a moot point. I suspect that United Future and New Zealand First would vote for it en bloc, and the Greens would correspondingly oppose it en bloc. Speaking of 'gender clarification,' though, what about the transgender community? Does this undo M v H [1994], the Family Court and High Court decisions that allowed postop transpeople to marry in their reassigned sex? If so, do they have any mandate to do that? And wouldn't it go against UFNZ's declared intention to vote for the first reading of Georgina's transgender rights anti-discrimination bill when it gets to Parliament after the next election? In any case, it wouldn't be binding on future Parliaments. When United Future's caucus vanishes at the next general election, it won't be able to insure its retention. This private members bill is a waste of time, and it should be defeated at its first reading. Public opinion will change, and it is already tired of the nuisance members of the stealth fundamentalist party in question. Recommended Reading: http://www.family.org US Focus on the Family (ringleaders of US anti-SSM campaign) http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz United Future New Zealand Christian Right Anti-SSM Propaganda: James Dobson: Marriage Under Fire: Sisters: Multnomah: 2004. Bill Maier and Stanton Jones: Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting: Wheaton Grove: IVP: 2004. James Perkins (ed) Defence of Marriage: Do We Need It? New York: Novinka: 2004. Craig Young - 9th May 2005