| Revision as of 22:04, 28 December 2008 editSpotfixer (talk | contribs)1,386 edits →Transsexuals: ref← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:05, 28 December 2008 edit undoSpotfixer (talk | contribs)1,386 edits Because it's only a matter of time. The demographics show that the young are, with certain exceptions, less homophobic than the old. Young Catholics are one exception.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{SSM}} | {{SSM}} | ||
| '''New Zealand''' does not allow '''same-sex marriage''' proper, but allows ]s that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of ]. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the ], as well as ]. | '''New Zealand''' does not yet allow '''same-sex marriage''' proper, but allows ]s that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of ]. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the ], as well as ]. | ||
| On immigration to ], couples that have ] from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a ] partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey. ] are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area. | On immigration to ], couples that have ] from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a ] partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey. ] are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area. | ||
Revision as of 22:05, 28 December 2008
| Part of the LGBTQ rights series | ||
| Legal status of same-sex unions | ||
|---|---|---|
Marriage
Recognized
|
||
|
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
|
||
|
Minimal recognition
|
||
See also
|
||
Notes
|
||
 LGBTQ portal | ||
New Zealand does not yet allow same-sex marriage proper, but allows civil unions that provide virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, there are no obstacles to eventual reform such as statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage, as is the case due to statutory and constitutional enactments within much of the United States, as well as Australia.
On immigration to New Zealand, couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them may have their marriages recognised as a de facto partnership, but only specific forms of overseas registered partnerships are recognised as the legal equivalent of a New Zealand civil union. As of 2005, this only concerns registered partnerships from Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the US states of Vermont and New Jersey. Adoptions by same-sex couples are also not legal, although debate continues about eventual legislative reform in this area.
During the 2005 election, Prime Minister Helen Clark admitted that she thought it was discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act 1955, but said she would not push to change it.
On July 2, 2007, George Ireland of Auckland's Milne Ireland Walker legal firm was asked for his opinion on current matters related to same-sex marriage in Sweden, which may result in LGBT access to fully fledged marriage as opposed to the parallel spousal rights and responsibilities legislation that allows for civil unions, which have existed there since the early nineties. He suggested that given the New Zealand Labour Party-led government's strong record on rights for LGBT New Zealanders, such change would probably occur. Former Destiny New Zealand party president Richard Lewis agreed, from a negative and social conservative perspective.
Failure of Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill: December 2005
In 2005, United Future Member of Parliament (MP) Gordon Copeland sponsored the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill that would have amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and amend anti-discrimination protections in the Bill of Rights related to marital and family status so that the bill could stand. This move was strongly criticised by opponents of the legislation, such as then-Attorney General Michael Cullen as an overly 'radical' attack on the Bill of Rights.Template:December 2008
The bill also would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriages from foreign countries as marriages in New Zealand. However, it was voted down by a large margin (47 in favour, 73 against) on December 7, 2005. MPs who opposed the bill said they considered it unnecessary and MP Katherine Rich called the bill a "cheap political stunt" meant to appeal to "banjo-playing redneck homophobe(s)".
Since the failure of the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill, there has been no public debate about further legislative reforms or prohibition of same sex marriage within, or outside, New Zealand's Parliament. The Kiwi Party has kept silent about whether or not it would sanction a revival of its earlier failed private members bill, given that proponents of the ban Gordon Copeland and Larry Baldock are founding members of the party, as has the other New Zealand fundamentalist political party, the Family Party. Neither party held any seats in the Parliament of New Zealand after the general election held in early November 2008.
Same Sex Marriage and the New Zealand General Election 2008
On its "Value Your Vote" website , the Christian Right organisation "Family First" has reprinted the voting records of Members of Parliament on various social issues, including the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. Additionally, Right to Life New Zealand is also circulating a candidates questionnaire asking whether marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, amongst other, mostly anti-abortion subjects.
Transsexuals
If a post-operative transsexual marries someone of the opposite sex to the one that they had been reassigned to, that is considered a legal marriage under the Marriage Act 1955. This was decided by the M v H case in Otahuhu (Auckland)'s Family Court, and later upheld in New Zealand's Court of Appeal. This means that while pre-operative transpeople can contract civil unions, they cannot get married to a person of the gender opposite their gender identity, unlike their post-operative counterparts.
Public opinion
A New Zealand Herald poll found that 40% of New Zealanders supported gay marriage. There appear to be generational discrepancies in support, given that younger cohorts supported an end to discriminatory marriage laws, while older cohorts do not support such reform
See also
References
- "Gay Moves Worry Church". New Zealand Herald. 2007-07-02.