New Zealand has strongly rejected (73 to 47 - close to where I predicted last night) a Bill identical to what Australia passed in 2004 with the backing of both major parties, and similar to law the US passed in 1996 and several states during the 2004 election. I like to think we're just a little bit more enlightened than those countries on human rights so this is a good result. A person I know has four laws of politics, the third law being to "know how to count". Seems simple, but obviously some are not so good at it.
Ironically, as David Farrar points out, I now believe Gordon Copeland and United Future have made a challenge to the Marriage Act more likely to succeed (whenever it comes) because the courts can look at Parliament's rejection of this Bill and argue that the will of parliament is that Marriage is not just between one man and one woman. Silly conservatives! Of course, untimatly it is up to Parliament, which can either pass a defence of marriage bill, or same-sex marriage bill at any point in the future if the issue is working its way through the court system.
The Vote:
Labour 49 against
National 12 against
Greens 6 against
Maori 3 against NB - they couldn't cast all 4 votes because caucus members not in house
Progressives 1 against
NZ First 2 against
United 0 against
Act 0 against
So slightly better than I was thinking last night.
Points to note:
Maori Party: The influence of Pita Sharples on the Maori Party. Tariana took many conservative positions after leaving Labour including voting against the Civil Union Bill, Relationships Bill, and Care of Children Bill which allowed same-sex guardianship rights. A step towards a Maori Party that is closer to the left?
National Party: National's more centrist faction won the argument to have a conscience vote. This faction could become powerful during this Parliament, and I believe, ultimately decide the new leader of National for the 2008 Election. But will they be powerful enough? I had hoped as many as 18 might vote against this Bill, but 12 is the start of a stong centrist faction.
Act Party: What a ridiculous move for a so-called Liberal Party to vote for this Bill - a Bill being pushed for mostly by the Exclusive Brethren, the discredited Maxim Institute, and those who believe that "marriage is the only sexual activity which is sanctioned by God, which has God’s seal of approval. All other forms of sexual activity, therefore, fall short of that very very high standard, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual" = Gordon Copeland. A strategic mistake in terms of positioning.
Labour Party: Rejected the Bill strongly (all but one MP). Recognised that certain groups were attempting to re-litigate the Civil Union debate, pass a Bill which simple confirms the common law position, and waste parliament's time which can be better spent on other pieces of law.
I think your comment about the Court of Appeal looking at the rejection of this Bill to reopen the case on the Marriage Act is quite far fetched. It could be just as easily argued that the Civil Union Act is how Parliament looks at same sex relationships and therefore no change in the Marriage Act in intended. Delving into parliamentary materials only happens if the intention of the Act is not clear. I have never heard of the Court looking at the rejection of one piece of legislation as a reason to start looking at an existing Act creatively. I predict no change in the Court's interpretation of the Marriage Act 1955.
Posted by: tim barclay | December 07, 2005 at 10:50 PM
Woo-hoo! Unfortunately it's slighly too late to open the bottle of sparkling rose I have in the fridge. I guess I just have to hope for good weather tomorrow.
Posted by: Idiot/Savant | December 07, 2005 at 10:52 PM
Hi Tim. Yes I agree in a way. Whatever the courts eventually decide, it will ultimately be Parliaments decision.
Posted by: Tony Milne | December 07, 2005 at 11:33 PM
Idiot/Savant: Uncork it and be merry! A sweet result deserves a sweet celebration. Its the reactionary conservatives who will be keeping their bubbles on ice. Much like where their attitudes should be.
Posted by: ADAR | December 08, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Unfortunately the weather is looking even greyer - and rose is really a sunshine wine. Dammit.
Posted by: Idiot/Savant | December 08, 2005 at 12:51 PM
Cheers for reporting how the vote went, Tony. I can't believe Act voted for this crappy bill. Act has finally lost my vote for good.
Posted by: Zippy Gonzales | December 08, 2005 at 04:48 PM
Proud to be a New Zealander!
Posted by: Beagle | December 08, 2005 at 10:26 PM