The political implications of homosexual marriage

For each of  the past three years there have been more than 20,000 marriages, fewer than 100 homosexual unions, and fewer than 150 lesbian civil unions in New Zealand
For every 100 men who marry there is only one homosexual who joins in civil union.
For every 200 women who marry there are only three lesbians who join in civil union.

On the other hand:
For the 79 "straight" men in parliament there are four openly homosexual men, three of whom are militant homosexuals.
For the 35 "straight" women in parliament there are three openly lesbian women.

(Note that there may be other homosexual and lesbian members of parliament who have not declared themselves as such - therefore the number of "straight" members specified can be taken as the maximum, and the number of lesbian and homosexual members as the minimum)

There are no reliable statistics indicating how many New Zealanders identify themselves as homosexual or lesbian, but a common estimate is that they constitute 2% of the population, which would suggest that both these groups are seriously  under-represented in legally binding sexual unions, and seriously over-represented in the parliamentary political system.

Those statistics put in meaningful perspective the "Marriage Equality" bill currently before the New Zealand parliament.   Louisa Wall's bill is really aimed at extending the political and social influence of homosexuals and lesbians, and has little to do with any desire to enter into committed and enduring legal relationships, which is the ostensible justification..

Three demographic groups are over-represented in the membership of parliament.  They are lesbian women, homosexual men, and straight men.  The only under-represented group is "straight women". That would not necessarily matter if one or more of the over-represented groups was to act in the interests of "straight women".   But the actions of the New Zealand parliament over the past three decades provide little evidence that parliament as a whole is concerned to defend the interests of women - not just "professional" women, or prostitutes, or lesbians whose interests have been advanced, but women in general who have become the victims of the same reforms which have benefitted lesbians, prostitutes, and women of wealth.

One would not expect homosexual members to be concerned for the interests of women, and it is no surprise to find that the one great achievement of the first openly homosexual member of parliament, Tim Barnett (now Secretary-General of the New Zealand Labour Party) was to promote the legalisation of prostitution, with the implication that women can find fulfilment by selling sex to men.   But what about the lesbian members?  Would they not see to the interests of their straight sisters?  The record reveals otherwise.   The total effect of all the reforms of the past thirty years has been to devalue the role of normal women, to  make their lives fraught with difficulty, and to make it nigh on impossible for many women to follow their natural inclination to marry and raise a family.    These reforms promoted by the Labour Party, and maintained by the National Party, include tax reforms, financial de-regulation, and changes to the labour laws which have dramatically altered the distribution of wealth such that it is no longer possible for working class families in New Zealand to own a home, or to take on the financial burden of raising children.   The reforms have been "good" for the propertied classes, professional women, lesbians and homosexuals but they have been a disaster for ordinary working class women who want to raise a family.   These women must spend their best  child-bearing working to make ends meet and to save for the deposit on a home.   They work for "equal pay" to be sure, but their "equal pay"  is the minimum wage while for their "sisters" in parliament "equal pay" means a hundred thousand dollar salary.

The "Marriage Equality" bill is a self-indulgence for lesbian and homosexual politicians, but for hundreds of thousands of married women it adds insult to injury.   While denied in practice the right to raise a family, they have still been able to take some comfort from the fact that they partake in a social relationship the purpose of which is to provide the basis for conceiving, raising and nurturing children.   Not any longer.  By redefining marriage,  lesbian and homosexual politicians will take away from those women even the presumption that the purpose of their marriage is to have children.

But in the end the greatest indictment upon the New Zealand parliament is not the handful of homosexual and lesbian politicians whose self-serving "reforms" have had such a catastrophic impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.   The true disgrace is that among the 79 "straight men" in parliament, there are not even 61 willing to do the manly thing and take a stand for the ordinary working woman, who asks nothing more than the right to marry for the purpose of having a family.

Note:

The homosexual members of parliament are:
Charles Chauvel
Chris Finlayson
Kevin Hague
Grant Robertson

The lesbian members of parliament are:
Maryan Street
Jan Logie
Louisa Wall

Source: David Farrar, Kiwiblog