Civil Union and the Right to Contract
Rodney Hide on civil unions
There have been 20,000 marriages since Civil Unions became an option and 468 civil unions.
The way I figure it that’s 20,000 couples pleased to be able to get married. And 468 couples pleased to be able to have a civil union. I don’t see how anyone getting married could be upset by others opting for a civil union. Those who had a civil union previously didn’t have that option so there must be a net gain in happiness.
There’s now more choice, that must be a good thing.
Several critics have pointed to the low numbers of civil unions as if this was some reason for not legalising them.
Basically the state should be involved in registering and if necessary enforcing contracts, not in specifying their terms.
While civil unions were pushed by the gay and hard left, the fact remains they are a step forward for liberty.
As Rodney points out, people who want to get married still can. Those who wish to enter into another form of relationship now have that option.
To support civil unions, implies no value judgement on homosexuality or any other form of sexual expression. It requires only a belief that the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts should not be limited by the state or any other non participating individual or group.
There have been 20,000 marriages since Civil Unions became an option and 468 civil unions.
The way I figure it that’s 20,000 couples pleased to be able to get married. And 468 couples pleased to be able to have a civil union. I don’t see how anyone getting married could be upset by others opting for a civil union. Those who had a civil union previously didn’t have that option so there must be a net gain in happiness.
There’s now more choice, that must be a good thing.
Several critics have pointed to the low numbers of civil unions as if this was some reason for not legalising them.
Basically the state should be involved in registering and if necessary enforcing contracts, not in specifying their terms.
While civil unions were pushed by the gay and hard left, the fact remains they are a step forward for liberty.
As Rodney points out, people who want to get married still can. Those who wish to enter into another form of relationship now have that option.
To support civil unions, implies no value judgement on homosexuality or any other form of sexual expression. It requires only a belief that the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts should not be limited by the state or any other non participating individual or group.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
4/26/2006 01:55:00 PM
5 Comments:
Sorry, but your argument that civil unions imply no value judgment is disingenious at best. Let me be kind here. But I had expect better from the ACT vice-president.
And what other contracts does the state register? Please give an example where the state keeps a registry of a contract freely entered into by two individuals.
Sorry to diappoint you Berend, but I can't see where I'm being disingenuous. My point is that in a free society, people are free to live as they please whether others approve or not. You can despise, admire or be neutral towards homosexuality and still support the concept of civil union. The free market operates in all spheres Berend. In a free society healthy lifestyles will flourish and unhealthy ones will wither or perish. That is why I disagree with some of my conservative friends who wish to ban certain practices or lifestyles. I say, if the practice you don't like is truly as unhealthy as you think it is, the free market will allow nature to "punish" its practitioners, just as it will reward those with better values.
If you're confident that your values and practices are superior, test them against other ideas in the marketplace. The best values and practices will win in the end, just as the best businesses do.
Trevor, you know well that two people could get into any contract they liked and call it civil union before the government got involved.
But the government needed to be involved to give it the stamp of approval. That was the whole point of the debate.
Not if two people could live in one house or sleep in one bed and what else. They could already do that. They could already sign any contract they liked.
The whole debate was exactly that civil unions now and marriage later, and the whole point was to make a public statement about acceptable morality.
And free market, give me a break. Who's gonna pay for the kids that come out of these civil unions? Scientist after scientist had to come to the conclusion that children raised in marriage of 1 mum + 1 dad outperform children in any other combination.
But in our case the government gave it stamps of approval to any form of living together.
And who's going to pick up the tab for kids raised outside marriage? Yep right. Me.
I fully agree with your views, except that wasn't what the debate was about. That's the disingenious part.
Well clearly Berend I don't understand what the debate is about. To me it is real simple. Civil unions allow people to enter into a legal relationship they were not able to before. I don't care whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. Neither should the state.
Regarding state registration of contracts, try adoption or buying property for starters.
Ideally, the state should not define marriage but merely be an agent to enforce contracts registered with it, should they break down.
Your concern about the kids cast off from civil unions becoming a burden on the state also applies to marriages. It may be a higher percentage for civil unions, but that is more an arguement for abolishing the DPB than civil unions.
I hope this makes my views as clear as I can. I don't mind being called wrong, but I don't like being called disingenuous, or anything ese that smacks of evasiveness.
Trevor, if you read the Hansard, the entire debate was about that it was a value judgment.
Why do civil unions need civil cervants to lead a ceremony if it is just a contract?
Anyone could and can register a contract. But in this case the contract was empty, because everyone who voted, voted for the ceremony, not the contents of the contract, because it wasn't known at that time. But that was not important, it was a feel good measure.
It is disingenious if one misrepresents a debate, the contents of the debate or the views presented. The debate wasn't about a contract between two parties, it was a step forward to abolishing marriage as we know it, as was clearly acknowledged by the key player, auntie Helen.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home