When will NZ get equal rights for ALL citizens?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › When will NZ get equal rights for ALL citizens?

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400224 4-Nov-2010 15:16

nate:
jaymz: Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

So this should satisfy tardtasticx's (the OP) question?

I thought so, but I think this discussion has evolved away from the original issue into other similar areas.

Maybe tardtasticx can clarify this?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#400227 4-Nov-2010 15:27

jaymz:
nate:
jaymz: Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

So this should satisfy tardtasticx's (the OP) question?

I thought so, but I think this discussion has evolved away from the original issue into other similar areas.

Maybe tardtasticx can clarify this?

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/gay-adoption-now-that-i-have-your-attention: Now, this doesn't mean gay people can't adopt children at all. They can do so, as individuals, provided they meet all the other legal criteria. It's just that if a gay person does adopt, their partner (even if civil unionised, or having lived together for years) cannot get recognition in law as being that child's "parent". Similarly, if one member of a straight couple adopts a child, the other cannot do so ... unless they have got a piece of paper declaring them to be "married" (but not civil unionised, mind).

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400231 4-Nov-2010 15:29

nate:
jaymz: Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

So this should satisfy tardtasticx's (the OP) question?

I don't think so. This was established early on in the discussion. The problem in this situation is that however the family acts in practice, legally one of the parents is not really the parent. Also, even though we may say civil union is as good as marriage, it's not regarded that way by those unable to choose.

It would seem (to an outsider?) that things are actually reasonably equal in NZ, but any suggestion of that appears to be interpreted as condescending.

I would say that for all intents and purposes, adoption and "marriage" are available to homosexual couples in NZ, but others would disagree.

jaymz

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400249 4-Nov-2010 16:05

@tardtasticx

That indeed confirms what I found out.

So really, the issue isn't child adoption, rather marriage? The child adoption issue is just a result of the marriage issue. Which makes the underlying issue marriage of two same sex people.

Is that correct?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#400252 4-Nov-2010 16:08

jaymz: @tardtasticx

That indeed confirms what I found out.

So really, the issue isn't child adoption, rather marriage? The child adoption issue is just a result of the marriage issue. Which makes the underlying issue marriage of two same sex people.

Is that correct?

yeh pretty much.

jaymz

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400253 4-Nov-2010 16:09

nate:
jaymz: Correct, as long as the person adopting the child meets all other requirements (marriage is NOT a requirement) Gender, sexual preference, race are independant of the adoption process.

So this should satisfy tardtasticx's (the OP) question?

Nope, the underlying issue here is gay marriage.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#400312 4-Nov-2010 19:10

jaymz:
So really, the issue isn't child adoption, rather marriage? The child adoption issue is just a result of the marriage issue. Which makes the underlying issue marriage of two same sex people.
Is that correct?

I see it as one issue - same sex couples are not given the same choices as heterosexual couples. Whether people wish to marry or not, hetero couples have the option to choose to either marry or have a civil union. Same-sex couples don't have that choice.

For the purposes of adoption, a civil union does not have the same rights as a marriage.

Single people can adopt a child. When a marriage exists, both partners become the adoptive parents. This means the child's future is secure if one of the couple die. If a single adoptive parent dies the care of the child usually goes back to being a court matter - this means the surviving partner of a civil union has no legal rights to a child that is not theirs.

Anyone should be able to see that this is unbalanced and unfair. It is also unfair to the children that are adopted.

Taking this further - look what happens to the child. If a child is adopted by a married couple and one of the partners in that marriage is killed, ACC provides support for the child until it turns 18. If a child is adopted by a single person who is in a civil union, and forced to adopt as a single person because of archaic law, and that person dies, the child has no parent or guardian and has to rely on the courts to appoint someone to care for them. If the non-adoptive partner is killed, then there is no support from ACC or anyone else for that child.

By not having equality between marriages and civil unions where it comes to adoption there is a whole lot of pain for couples who want to have children, and potentially for the children themselves. Its wrong.

jaymz

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400316 4-Nov-2010 19:22

Elpie:
jaymz:
So really, the issue isn't child adoption, rather marriage? The child adoption issue is just a result of the marriage issue. Which makes the underlying issue marriage of two same sex people.
Is that correct?

I see it as one issue - same sex couples are not given the same choices as heterosexual couples. Whether people wish to marry or not, hetero couples have the option to choose to either marry or have a civil union. Same-sex couples don't have that choice.

For the purposes of adoption, a civil union does not have the same rights as a marriage.

Single people can adopt a child. When a marriage exists, both partners become the adoptive parents. This means the child's future is secure if one of the couple die. If a single adoptive parent dies the care of the child usually goes back to being a court matter - this means the surviving partner of a civil union has no legal rights to a child that is not theirs.

Anyone should be able to see that this is unbalanced and unfair. It is also unfair to the children that are adopted.

Taking this further - look what happens to the child. If a child is adopted by a married couple and one of the partners in that marriage is killed, ACC provides support for the child until it turns 18. If a child is adopted by a single person who is in a civil union, and forced to adopt as a single person because of archaic law, and that person dies, the child has no parent or guardian and has to rely on the courts to appoint someone to care for them. If the non-adoptive partner is killed, then there is no support from ACC or anyone else for that child.

By not having equality between marriages and civil unions where it comes to adoption there is a whole lot of pain for couples who want to have children, and potentially for the children themselves. Its wrong.

So again, the issue is same sex couples not being able to be married.

Aside from the unable to wed, what other inequalities are there for gay people?

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 26

#400321 4-Nov-2010 19:27

jaymz: Aside from the unable to wed, what other inequalities are there for gay people?

Do you have an amount of inequalities that are ok to have? I think none would be best!

jaymz

1136 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#400326 4-Nov-2010 19:48

In an ideal world there would be none.

I am just trying to simplify the discussion and isolate the root issue with it all.

From what I can understand the root issue is the inability for same sex couples to wed.

If same sex couples were able to be married then the child adoption issue would cease to exist.

As a general question though, are there any other laws/rules in NZ that apply to straight people but not gay people or vice versa?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#400329 4-Nov-2010 19:52

jaymz: In an ideal world there would be none.

I am just trying to simplify the discussion and isolate the root issue with it all.

From what I can understand the root issue is the inability for same sex couples to wed.

If same sex couples were able to be married then the child adoption issue would cease to exist.

As a general question though, are there any other laws/rules in NZ that apply to straight people but not gay people or vice versa?

No I'm pretty sure nearly all of those problems relate back to marriage one way or another.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#400520 5-Nov-2010 10:10

It's not fair, that's clear. What's not clear to me is whether it's unfair enough to worry about (not meaning to sound so dismissive) given that:
a) there aren't a lot of adoptions in NZ as it is anyway
b) a lot of other things are considered "unfair" by different people

This thread is not about gay marriage/adoption (or is it?). I thought it was about equal rights for all NZers, not just equal rights for gay NZers.

How will changing the marriage laws help de facto couples adopt a child? It won't. You may say they have a choice to get married, but it's no choice at all when it's forced upon you.

Obviously, change takes time. Do you think this issue is the #1 inequality that exists in NZ? Should this be the first thing we change? Will this make the biggest difference to the largest number of NZers?

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#400559 5-Nov-2010 10:57

The more I think about this, the more I think having some sort of *church based ritual linked to a bunch of laws in the nation seems pretty odd. It doesn't reflect the trends of a lot of New Zealanders away from churches, and away from marriage (for what ever reason). As mentioned by bazzer etc, this is part of a broader observation/discussion even before you get to the specific case of gay couples.

And the more I think about that, the more I think the civil union as a legal document should be undertaken by all couples pledging to be together, regardless of them possibly being married as well. I think the legal document side of things then allows for debate as to who is eligible for a civil union, but once you have it you should then be viewed as approved for any activity for which current laws require a marriage.

* I know a lot of people do not view marriage as a church based activity, just being a bit historical about it. A bit like how we are forced to take Christmas/Easter holidays in this country, which are religious events.

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#400689 5-Nov-2010 12:14

Jaxson: A bit like how we are forced to take Christmas/Easter holidays

Would you rather work on those days?? *sarcasm*

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#400700 5-Nov-2010 12:29

cgrew: Would you rather work on those days?? *sarcasm*

Hell no!

Just illustrating the religious aspects underpinning our New Zealand culture. There are other religious events that we do not take a holiday to observe, which would be observed holidays overseas in other countries.

So we have religious days being observed by all, despite people moving away from churches in record numbers. In that respect how right is it that marriage is still a major component of these laws in todays society as well.

Actually I'm gonna talk myself out of a holiday at Christmas here so I'll just stop about there! I'll just say that we are a more modern culture now with less and less ties to traditional religious value etc and traditional definitions on family units etc, so I think a rethink wouldn't be such a bad idea is all.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17