Berend has posted some replies to my recent rant and I actually think that we probably agree on what the end result should be....

I essentially agree with Chris point of view. But again, this isn't an integrated package. It doesn't remove state paid child care for example.

*nods*... If only it were an integrated package! I think that we could actually quite easily agree on what the end result should/could be... we are just divided on how to get there....

Labour wants to change the law. Do we really believe a Labour law will give more freedom to the people? It doesn't. It will have huge impact on who you can employ as a business or who you can appoint as teacher at your school.

To be completely honest I think the horse has unfortunatly already bolted on these. I think that the Human Rights Act already makes it nearly impossible to discriminate in the hiring process. I don't think that the Civil Unions Bill will have a great effect on the hiring/firing thing.

It affirms that the government has something to say about marriage and can define what it is. I thought real Libertarians denied the government could do this. So how can it be a step in the good direction?

But the crucial point is that it DOESNT try and say anything about marriage. The bill says that the goverment will recognise the legal union of two people of the same sex and that this recognition is categoricaly NOT marriage as the current statutory definition defines it. It's the christian brigade who say that that is something akin to marriage. I do deny that the government should be involved in marriage- get them the hell out. Let the churches have the concept of marriage back to offer as the icing on the relationship cake to those who abide by their beliefs.

The quote that ACT has steadfastly opposed each of the anti-family Bills that it has introduced came from a column of Muriel Newman.

Of all the ACT MPs she is probably the one that would look least out of place in United Future so it is an unsurprising comment. But, let's quickly flick through those bills- I'm going off the cuff here so I may totally stuff up and make some invalid assumptions about the contents of these bills but here goes...

Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill.
I would hope that the problem that most (Muriel obviously excepted) ACT MPs had with this bill was that it forced unchosen obligations onto people who, in many cases, had made a deliberate choice not to enter into a statutory relationship.

Families Commission Bill
Can't really remember enough about the Bill to comment- always seemed to be a let's create a social construct so that we can throw money at it Bill to me anyway. Bills that contain the workding 'for the good of Families' scare me almost as much as bills with the wording 'for the good of Society'....

Care of Children Bill
Muriel complains about it making it easier for gay partners to become guardians of children. I personally think that we should set a far higher standard than we currently do before awarding guardianship... but, I don't have a problem with gay people caring for children. I'm inclined to agree that the lack of a shared parening clause is unfortunate.

DPB....
I would hope that my statements on the 'family friendly' budget give some indication as to my feelings for have a child earn another buck govt. funding programs.

Civil Union Bill...
Already discussed in the last article. Neuman rolls out the usual 'bad for marriage' stuff... It's not marriage nor does it pretend to be marriage. it is something quite distinct. Hell, if it were available it might make a good option for those of us heterosexual people who aren't really into the whole Christian concept of marriage. It's sure as hell a better idea that the stupid 'deemed civil union' shit that came through in the  Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill.

So hopefully there are some areas in which Berend on the conservative side and myself on the liberal side can agree on. Here are a couple of questions for him and others...*puts on his utopian crystal ball gazer hat*

1. In the ideal world the government would not have anything to do with marriage except for enforcing marriage contracts in the same way as they might enforce any other contract.
2. In the ideal world the government would not be dishing out any favours or 'rights' on the basis of relation status, be that attached or unattached.