An Open Letter to Our Politicians on Marriage Equality

If you follow my tumblr, excuse cross-posting; this is an issue that deserves talking about


Dear Members of the 50th New Zealand Parliament,


I'd like to talk to you about marriage equality. I'm aware some of you have already decided to vote in favour of the upcoming bill. That's great. It'd be neat if you could read this anyway. I'm sure you'll be getting letters from people telling you that it's a Bad Idea. I'd like to add my voice to the many telling you that it's a good one.


If you haven't decided yet, or, you're planning on voting against the bill, please do read on. Take a moment to consider the impact your decision might have. Around the world, countries, and states, are slowly but surely voting in favour of marriage equality. They're voting to remove one of the last legislated areas of discrimination. Do we want to follow their excellent example, or do we want to continue to uphold our, frankly, embarrassing laws?


You'll be hearing many arguments about why we should pass this bill. I'd like to address them one at a time.


"Marriage equality degrades what marriage is"


Across all cultures, marriage now seems to have a few common themes. It's about two people who love each other making a public commitment in front of friends and family, and in the process gaining some legal rights. It's not a financial transaction, or a union for procreation any more, and it's heterosexual couples who have changed that definition.


I can't see any way in which two gay men or two lesbian women marrying each other degrades this concept. It's a statement that makes as little sense as implying that one couple's marriage is degraded because another couple divorces after 72 hours of 'wedded bliss'. The marriage of one couple means no more, or no less, simply because another couple marries or divorces. We know plenty of them do divorce. 35% of couples married in 1986 divorced before their silver wedding anniversary.(source)


Marriage, as an institution, has a pretty chequered history. It wasn't all that long ago that a woman became her husband's property, and that rape couldn't occur within a marriage. In spite of that it remains the most widely recognised way for a couple to show their commitment.


Which brings me to the second argument.


"Marriage is a religious institution, so, what the Church thinks should be what goes"


The institution of marriage, in some way, shape, or form, predates modern religion. It is not a religious institution, although the history of the two are intertwined. We allow marriages between people who hold no religious affiliation, or between people of different religions without a qualm. We do this without caring what an individual church may think of that person marrying outside his or her faith. Heck, we allow divorces, and the church doesn't like that much either.


New Zealand is a secular country. Our laws are not, and should not be, decided on the basis of religious beliefs. Indeed, there are some churches who have stated they welcome marriage equality. The churches aren't being forced to perform the ceremonies and they don't own 'marriage'.


"Marriage is for creating children"


There's no requirement to birth children in current legislation, and we let infertile and sterilised men and women marry. Utterly ridiculous argument.


"We already gave them civil unions, isn't that enough?"


This is my personal favourite: discrimination disguised as acceptance. Separate, but equal. No, civil unions are not enough. Civil unions were a step in the right direction, but discrimination is not ok. It sends the wrong message about us as a society. It says the wrong thing to young gay and lesbian woman growing up--that their society, and their laws, still don't 100% accept and support them for who they are. New Zealand must be a country where young people can grow up feeling supported and confident in themselves and their sexuality.


Civil unions grant most of the same rights as marriage, but not all. That's an important distinction to make. Many people aren't aware that civil union partners don't hold the same legal rights as a husband or wife in some foreign countries. In New Zealand, the key difference is adoption laws.


That brings me to the final argument:


"Won't somebody think of the children?"


Yes, indeed, won't somebody finally think of the children? The best way for me to tell you how I feel about this is to tell you about me, and about two very different relationships.


I grew up in a nice suburb in Auckland with my mum, dad, and 2 brothers. From the outside, we were probably a Family First wet dream: White family, living in a nice, wealthy area, father a director of a construction company, mother a teacher, grandparents living in Remuera.


It wasn't all that. My father was abusive. I saw, first hand, what the glorious institution of marriage can be like when it goes horribly wrong. I saw what happens when one party feels like they can't leave because the Church says it's bad, and society tells you your kids should have a father figure. My parents finally separated when I was in my early teens.


Then my mum met someone. Someone who loved her, and whom she loved. Someone who treated her well, in a way that my dad never had, and who made her happy. That someone, as you may have guessed, is a woman, and 11 years later, they continue to make each other happy. She's pretty fantastic.


Which brings me back to thinking about the children. I remember being petrified of something happening to my Mum. She had quite a health scare just before my 16th birthday. We didn't have any other close family, and if anything had happened, we'd have had to go back to the nightmare of living with our father, because we live in a country where Mum's partner couldn't adopt us, even if she wanted to, and we wanted her to. Seems stupid, doesn't it?


There's an awful lot of scare-ranting about adopting needy babies away from husbands and wives who badly want them. There's talk about how we should give these children stable families. There's the obvious issue that those homes are no more likely to be 'stable' than one provided by a same-sex couple. But, more importantly, these days, that type of adoption is far rarer than the in-family type I'm talking about. It's better for a child to be in a safe and loving home, regardless of the sexes of the parents. You can get positive male, or female, role models from people other than parents, as any single parent knows.


There's one last thing I'd urge you to consider when deciding how to vote on this legislation: Vote for the future. Vote for our generation. Go and talk to them. For the last 11 years, I have watched how our society reacts to same-sex couples with a keen interest. I can tell you that for our generation, this law change is not an 'if' statement; it's a 'when'. We're embarrassed by our current laws. We're embarrassed when our parents, our grandparents, or anyone else for that matter, makes a homophobic comment. We see those viewpoints as ridiculous, and resolutely archaic.


I've watched young people apologise to me, or to my mum and her partner, for their parents' reactions. Stop making our generation apologise for yours. Make us proud of you instead. Send the message that discrimination is not OK in New Zealand. Being gay or lesbian is not easy for New Zealanders of any age. I've seen what my mum has been through. I've seen what friends have been through. It's not a path you walk just for the fun of it. It is not a love any less worth recognising. It's time we stood up and said that. It's time we recognised everyone's right to happiness and love.