by frog
On this day 23 years ago the Parliament of New Zealand passed the landmark Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Such reform was a founding a policy of the Values Party in 1972 (the Values Party became the Green Party in 1990). NZHistory tells:
The Homosexual Law Reform Bill took 14 months to move through the parliamentary process. Members of Parliament had rejected a proposed amendment that would raise the age of consent to 18, so it remained at 16 in the final legislation – the same age as for heterosexuals.
The final vote was held on 9 July 1986, and the bill was passed by 49 votes to 44. The governor-general gave assent to the legislation two days later, and it came into effect on 8 August that year. Gays, lesbians and their supporters partied; opponents predicted doom and gloom. For the first time in New Zealand legal history, homosexual men could enter into sexual relationships without fear of prosecution.
For the law reformers, it was still only a partial victory. The second part of the bill, which would have removed discrimination on the basis of sexuality, was rejected. Opponents argued that homosexuality was not a human rights issue and that discrimination was fair and acceptable. It wasn’t until the Human Rights Act was passed in 1993 that it became illegal in New Zealand to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Other legislative barriers for homosexuals have been removed. In 2005 the Civil Unions Act allowed gay and lesbian couples to formalise their relationship. The debates over this legislation were not as bitter as those in 1985 and 1986, but they still revealed the depth of opposition to homosexuality among some New Zealanders. Prejudices die hard, and legislative changes do not mean that attitudes shift; gays and lesbians can still find it difficult to be out and about.
The tough work of progressive reform continues…
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Justice & Democracy | Parliament | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, July 9th, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I recall the campaign well frog. Interestingly, the opponents of reform were the same sectors of society that are now advocating decriminalising the hitting of children.
BTW – there is anotehr anniversary to celebrate today too – g.blog is one year old today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
at the same time..
weren’t fervid promises made to expend all effort to ‘end prohibition’.
wha’ happened..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Frog for remembering. 23rd anniversary is somewhere between china and silver traditionally, if anyone was thinking of gifts.
It was a really important night for me. I listened to the debate and the vote on the radio, and as it was a conscience vote we really didn’t know how it was going to work out until that night. Subsequently I learned that there were members holding back their votes until they knew that there would be enough to pass it, before they personally voted against (or abstained). At the time, though, it felt really close, and I retained a particular admiration for George Gair.
The real credit, though, has to go to the tireless efforts of gay and lesbian groups and individuals (I won’t specify names, for fear that I inadvertently miss someone), and, of course, Fran Wilde.
Still a long way to go of course. There is no question that life is easier now for adult, out gay and lesbian people. But for the young person just figuring out that they are different from their peers, the social environment is still often very hostile and stigmatising – probably not much different to how things felt before law reform. It seems to me too that it would be interesting to examine whether today’s social environment for young people demands more or less conformity to peer norms than that of the late 60s and 70s.
Plenty more work to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Interestingly, the opponents of reform were the same sectors of society that are now advocating decriminalising the hitting of children.”
Bullsh!t Toad, that is absolute rubbish.
You are not doing your cause any favors with your anti ‘everybody who disagrees with me’ bigotry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed it was an enormous step forward, though adults can still face criminal charges for consensual sex under certain circumstances (incest) – that all should not be a factor for the criminal law.
Worth noting the law only applied to men (lesbians did not face criminal sanction), and that it also applied to anal intercourse between men and women.
However, the opponents of the 1985 legislation are NOT the same people advocating decriminalising smacking. Whilst i am not in favour of any form of corporal punishment, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t for a moment support criminalising homosexual acts who also don’t want to criminalise parents for mild corporal punishment.
The coalition of those who wanted to maintain the status quo in 1985 included many National party conservatives, the conservative wing of the Labour Party (seen in Geoff Braybrooke, Trevor de Cleene), including all Maori MPs, externally the Salvation Army shamed itself by opposing legalisation. Worth noting Jim Bolger was one who voted against it, something he wouldn’t care to be reminded of now, as did Lockwood Smith, now speaker of the House, and John Banks of course.
Fortunately so much has changed since then, but it was a landmark step towards greater individual freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m with Toad on this one Shunda. I’ll agree that the individuals leading opposition to Homosexual Law Reform in the 1980s are not the same individuals who opposed the repeal of s.59 of the Crimes Act. I’ll also agree that there isn’t a 1:1 correspondence between the two groups – some of those who opposed HLR supported the repeal of s.59, and vice versa.
But there is continuity of thought and philosophy – grounded in a particular moral perspective. Often this has a religious basis, though I hasten to add that this reflects just one part of the religious spectrum, with other parts having supported the reform in both cases.
I don’t think Larry Baldock, for example would disagree with the assertion that the political and moral perspective he represents is the same one that opposed HLR 23 years ago. Furthermore, I expect that it would be possible to demonstrate “family tree” linkages between the organisations active in opposing HLR in the 1980s, and those active today.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of New Zealanders nowadays believe that sexual acts between consenting adult men should be against the criminal law. I’ll bet that it is very much reduced from the mid-1980s. In part that will have been because the dire consequences predicted by opponents of HLR simply never eventuated. Interesting parallel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It would be interesting to know what proportion of New Zealanders nowadays believe that sexual acts between consenting adult men should be against the criminal law.”
Well it would be less for sure.
Personally I see no biblical mandate to stop people from “sinning” I believe a core principal of the gospel is that free will is an essential principal for believers and unbelievers alike.
Perhaps people back then (I was only 8 at the time so i don’t recall it) thought that it would be a slippery slope to moral decay. Homosexuals have been around forever, I think people get scared cause they think its new or something.
The only issue I have with some in the gay community is the whole marriage thing, I am not against civil unions, but I believe marriage is a heterosexual tradition and should remain so. Keeping marriage a heterosexual tradition is in no way impinging on the rights of others, it is important to have at least something to celebrate the relationship between men and women. It is also important to have special recognition for the most stable relationship to raise a family.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
..it is important to have at least something to celebrate the relationship between men and women.
At least something? You need this to do that and would feel there is nothing otherwise? As one in a hetero marriage, I’ve just never understood those who need to define their own relationship based on what others are allowed to call theirs.
It is also important to have special recognition for the most stable relationship to raise a family.
Aside from this need being false in my view, it is not intuitive to me that it is true. What are your figures for claiming this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’ve just never understood those who need to define their own relationship based on what others are allowed to call theirs.”
So you are arguing against gay marriage?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The 1985 legislation was a briliant example of the political leadership finally responding to grassroots direct action. There was quite a bit of resistance in parliamentary circles, but finally the majority just had to accept that it was idiotic to try and maintain the law in face of it being so widely ignored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Denying others a right you enjoy isn’t impinging on their rights..? How would you feel if someone said that to you about voting..? How does allowing gay people the right to wed impinge on your rights my friend..?
The only insideous part of the civil union act is that I am treated under the law as if we were married if my girlfriend and I decide to live together for two years… This takes away my right to decide if I want to get married or not…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think that there should be no legal distinction between marrage and civil unions, they should even be called the same thing. If it is recognised as marrage or not is up to the respective church and their views on it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient I agree that churches should be able to decide, according to their own beliefs, the criteria for whom they are repared to ‘marry’ (although this is an interesting tension between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination). However ‘marriage’ is given a meaning and status by the law (the Marriage Act) i.e. is secular. I don’t believe that there is good reason for the State’s recognition of pair-bonds between people to vary according to the gender of the people involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin Hauge,
I agree entirely, and that was what I mean by ” there should be no legal distinction between marrage and civil unions, they should even be called the same thing.”.
The state should esentially be the custodian of a legal agreement between the two people and any variations in entitlements granted due to marrages should be granted to couples reguardless of the gender pairings. The spiritual meaning of marrage exists outside of the states authority and within the realm of the individuals spirituality.
Another interesting concept is the controversal practice of poligamy, while it is illegal in NZ I would have no problem should this be changed. Poligamy is acceptable in many moral outlooks and a well worded law should easily nullify any complications that would be induced due to poligamy; e.g. the consent of the other partner/s already married must be gained, witnessed, etc., the whole property arangements would need to be modified slightly, though that is becoming obsolite with pre-nups (question: can a spouse touch stuff in a trust?).
I do disagree with the whole 2-year thing though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Denying others a right you enjoy isn’t impinging on their rights..? How would you feel if someone said that to you about voting..? How does allowing gay people the right to wed impinge on your rights my friend..?”
Because it completely changes the definition of the institution I have an interest in.
There is massive difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual, there is no reason why there shouldn’t be a legal distinction between them. Marriage has been a heterosexual institution forever, why should it be changed due to a tiny minority of gay activists desperate for a battle ground?. The recent events in California attest to this activism, once the right to marry was given, then comes the confrontation of gay activists forcing churches to marry them. This is why the law was reversed, people saw the real agenda and don’t like it.
This is not a human rights issue anymore, the rights of homosexuals have been settled (except perhaps regarding adoption) with the civil unions bill, this is now about radical activists wanting the tradition as well.
The battle has been won, enjoy your victory and get on with your life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not sure if that was a retorical question but absolutely, my lawyer advised me that when me and my girlfriend get married I should start a new trust with her… He said, “if you keep your trust rich and your marriage poor it can be challenged if court”…
I guess in my opinion Shunda a right isn’t really a right until its universal, any right with qualifiers like say when the poll tax was restricting the vote of Blacks in Southern America needs activists…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“any right with qualifiers like say when the poll tax was restricting the vote of Blacks in Southern America needs activists…”
Not relevant.
A more fitting example would be women crying inequality because they can’t play for the all blacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Any historians, or merely interested persons, might like to hunt down these publications:
20 years on – Histories of Homosexual Law Reform in New Zealand – edited by Alison Laurie and Linda Evans, the proceedings of the Conference held in 2006 to celebrate the twentieth Anniversary – just published & launched by the National Library in early 2009.
Or the other collection of memorabilia of the campaign – Outlines, Lesbian and Gay Histories of Aotearoa, also edited by Alison Laurie & Linda Evans, published in 2005.
Both use resources from LAGANZ, the Lesbian and Gay Archives of NZ, held within the Turnbull Library at National Library.
The books can be obtained from LAGANZ if unavailable in the local library!
my public service post for the week …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course its relevant, my girlfriends catholic and I’m not but the priest can’t refuse to marry us based on my faith but he could if I was a woman, it is currently a right with restrictions…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)