view_article

Gay Couples Have Nothing To Do With The Problem

By Jim Peron

Bruce Logan of the Maxim Institute seems to believe that recognition of gay civil unions would mean disaster. He said it was "a direct attack on marriage and the natural family." And while there is little doubt that his views are strongly anti-gay his tirade is against the idea that individuals should be free to enter into marriage for their own well-being.

Logan sees marriage not as a contract between two people, but as "our most sacred and important social act." He says that civil union legislation will allow same sex couples to form contractual relationships without being "considerate of the community's good." Mr. Logan and his group believe that marriage is not for the good of the individual but for the good of society. Individual choice is not relevant.

Now what exactly is his hang-up about gay civil unions? Logan tells us it is not about discrimination or being mean. But I must question that.

He says, but does not substantiate, that gay unions are an attack on the family that "intrudes" on the process of marriage and damages society. He remains unclear about how. He jumps back and forth between talking about marriage, as a relationship between the spouses, and family, which his group sees as a man and a woman with children.

His view sees marriage as collectivist in that it is a social act for the good of the community. He condemns the 'individualist' view that he says is "an adult agenda which is independent of claims about the welfare or needs of children." But why this sudden confusion of marriage between two spouses with a family with children? This jump is particularly odd since same-sex couples are highly unlikely to have children.

Same-sex unions, he says, are not legitimate because they "do not provide the first essential, a mother and a father." But these relationships do not produce children with a need for a mother and a father either. Does he see procreation as the only justification for marriage? Are people only breeding stock? Is there no aspect of marriage that is individualist?

In New Zealand only around 1,350 gay couples have dependent children in the house, according to the census. This is out of 1,344,000 households. That means that just one out of about every 1,000 households is a gay couple with a child - this is hardly a staggering number. If one is upset about the state of today's children then gay couples have little to do with the crisis. And even with civil unions they are unlikely to have much to do with the matter in the future as well. Constantly referring to children seems more a red herring than a legitimate concern.

There is little doubt that children are in crisis today. But that crisis was not created by gay couples. So that crisis is not a legitimate excuse to deny homosexuals their relationships.

He says that marriage is based on the "different complementary nature of men and women, and how they refine, support, encourage and complete one another." But are such traits unique to heterosexuals? To imply that they are is really a statement that degrades homosexual people.

Elsewhere he speaks of the "love, commitment and sacrifice that makes family life possible," again implying that such traits are something that gay people do not have. In my lifetime I've met many heterosexual couples who do not exhibit such traits and many homosexual couples that do.

I assume Mr. Logan would say he is not being intolerant or lacking in compassion. But such statements seem to speak to the contrary. The human traits that he lists as important for marriage are just that: human traits. They are not heterosexual traits. Gay men and women are not devoid of such virtues. To imply that they are, whether it was unintentional, comes across as mean-spirited and bigoted. It seems to imply gay people are a lesser species.

It is unfortunate that many people constantly intrude on the relationship of gay people. I can state a few cases I've run into over the years in the countries where I have lived. In one case a lesbian couple was ripped apart when one was paralysed in an accident. Her parents were very anti-gay, and although their daughter's partner was caring for her fully, they went to court to gain custody. Their daughter couldn't speak or write. The court ruled in their favour because the parents are family while the partner had no legal standing at all. The parents dumped the woman in a nursing home.

A gay man might be in an intensive care unit in hospital. His partner is stopped from visiting due to a "family only" policy. Gay men have lost their partners only to find "family" coming in and taking all the belongings of their relative. No matter how long the relationship, no matter how committed it had no legal standing and the partner was left feeling robbed while in mourning.

I do agree that the law intrudes on relationships. And if Mr. Logan wishes to campaign to remove such intrusions by the state - across the board - in a non-discriminatory manner, I'll support him. But denying gay couples the right to establish a legal union is not the way to solve the problems that plague modern marriage.

---

Published in the Otago Daily Times, July 31 2003

---

Jim Peron is the Executive Director of the Institute for Liberal Values, the editor of the book The Liberal Tide, and the author of the forthcoming book 'The Road Not Taken: Resolving the Crisis on the Roads.'