Talk:Civil union in New Zealand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil union in New Zealand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

New Zealand: Politics High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I moved this to the plural to accord with the other articles on this subject, viz. Civil unions in Quebec, Civil unions in the United Kingdom, et seq. - Montréalais 07:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think technically they should all be singular, since it's the Wikipedia standard. You'd expect "Marriage in New Zealand" not "Marriages in New Zealand". I might be oversimplifying it though. Ben Arnold 20:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be quite good to have a list of the names of MPs who voted for and against, as well as the party breakdown. —Christiaan 13:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Hansard 9 December 2004 (P) marks proxy votes I think:

"A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 65

Anderton (P) Barker Barnett Benson-Pope Beyer Bradford (P) Burton Carter C Chadwick Choudhary (P) Clark (P) Coddington Cullen Cunliffe (P) Dalziel Donald Donnelly (P) Duncan Dyson Ewen-Street (P) Fairbrother Fitzsimons (P) Gallagher Goff (P) Gosche Hartley Hawkins Hereora Hide Hobbs Hodgson Horomia (P) Hughes Hunt Kedgley King Laban (P) Locke (P) Mackey J Mackey M Maharey (P) Mahuta Mallard (P) Okeroa (P) Parker Peck Pettis Pillay Prebble Rich (P) Ririnui (P) Robson Roy (P) Samuels (P) Shirley Simich Sutton (P) Swain (P) Tanczos Tizard Turei (P) Ward Wilson Wong (P) Yates

Noes 55

Adams (P) Alexander (P) Ardern (P) Baldock Brash (P) Brown Brownlee Carter D (P) Carter J (P) Catchpole Collins (P) Connell (P) Copeland Cosgrove (P) Dunne (P) Duynhoven Eckhoff (P) English (P) Field (P) Franks Goudie (P) Gudgeon (P) Heatley Hutchison Jones Key (P) Mapp Mark McCully (P) McNair Newman (P) Oconnor (P) Ogilvy (P) Paraone (P) Perry (P) Peters J (P) Peters W (P) Power (P) Robertson (P) Ryall (P) Scott Smith L Smith M Smith N Sowry (P) Stewart (P) Tamihere (P) te Heuheu (P) Tisch Turia (P) Turner (P) Wang (P) Williamson Woolerton (P) Worth (P)

Sorry, am no good with tables so you'll have to figure out how to put it in the articl. Lisiate 01:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this article also needs to mention the Relationships Bill which has not been passed since this is the important part which will ensure complete recognition etc of a Civil Union... User:60.234.141.76

Could we agree that when describing who CUs apply to it isn't heterosexual and homosexual couples, but same-sex and opposite-sex couples? The law in question doesn't discuss sexual orientation, just relationship composition. I will edit on this basis unless there is great objection. Tweakie 24 August 2005

Absolutely. Be bold and fix it. Don't feel you have to ask permission. You make a good point though, and mentioning it on the talk page is a good idea. (By the way I took the liberty of moving your signature to after your comment, which is the normal style for these talk pages. Did you know you can generate the signature by typing four tildes: ~~~~.) Ben Arnold 00:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ben - I had wondered about the signature :-) Tweakie 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Suggestion

The article Civil Union Act 2004 is a stub and expanding it would just create an article almost identical to this one, I suggest merging the two, what do others think? Lossenelin 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - I think you should keep "Civil Unions in NZ" and redirect Civil Union Act 2004 there. Kiwimw 06:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, no one has objected so I'll go ahead. I'll make the link to Civil Union Act in this article an external link to the act to aviod an infinate loop. Lossenelin 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another merger proposal

It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in New Zealand and Civil unions in New Zealand into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in New Zealand. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.

This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".

In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. Caveat lector 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, especially if it's part of a wider merger. --Helenalex 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles have substantially different content at present, and other than fitting in with the more general standards for such articles on other countries, I see no pressing reason for a change.

If the articles are merged, then as civil unions affect heterosexual as well as gay couples the title should reflect this. A title of "Same-sex marriage and civil unions in New Zealand" would be fine.-gadfium 06:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gadfium, the title needs to reflect that there are also opposite-sex civil unions in New Zealand for a variety of reasons. NZ forever 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to such merging, on the basis that while the Civil Union Act 2004 and Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005 both provided parallel secular recognition ceremonies, documentation and acqusition of rights and responsibilities parallel to heterosexual marriage, the Marriage Act 1955 still discriminates against same-sex couples. Granted, LGBT New Zealanders use terms like "tie the knot", "get hitched", "nuptials" or other colloquialisms for our civil unions, but for the moment anyway, marriage is closed to us as a ritual and ceremonial option.

Actually, here's an idea, too. There tend to be a range of opinions toward the status quo within LGBT New Zealand. Some of us regard same-sex marriage as a more or less residual issue, and would prioritise adoption law reform as the chief remaining issue of discrimination against our communities, while others regard the continued exclusion of LGBT New Zealanders from the Marriage Act 1955 as unacceptable discrimination. In time, I imagine that as with the proposed Wikipedia category merger, same sex marriage proper will arrive in New Zealand, and there will be no reason for civil unions as a parallel institution. Unfortunately, though, that will have to wait until parliamentary composition is sufficiently favourable to permit such reforms, inevitable as they seem to be, judging from other jurisdictions. Calibanu 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [User Calibanu] 12.42, 12 September 2007 (NZST)[reply]