Home

Marriages up, divorces down in 2007
12:40PM Tuesday May 06, 2008
 
Kiwis are waiting longer to get married with February 24th the most popular day to get hitched - civil unions remained steady with divorces on the decline.
Love and marriage is still going strong in New Zealand, with the number of marriages and civil unions remaining steady and the divorce rate declining, Statistics New Zealand says.
In total, 21,500 couples said "I do" last year, an increase on the 20,800 average for the last decade, statistician Geoff Bascand said.
The most popular day to walk down the aisle was Saturday, and the most popular date was February 24 - with 610 marriages celebrated.
Summer, as always was the most popular season, with 43 per cent of weddings being held in the first three months of the year.
And despite winter months traditionally not being popular for weddings, last July saw an increase of couples marrying, with 290 attracted to the lucky 07/07/07 date.
About 70 die-hard romantic couples wed on Valentine's Day, which last year fell on a Wednesday.
Today's marrying couples are waiting a lot longer than their parents, with last year's median age at 29.9 and 28.1 years for men and women respectively.
In 1971 men and women wed on average at the tender ages of 23 and 20.8 years respectively.
Last year also saw 316 couples celebrate a civil union, made up of 253 same sex unions - 103 male and 150 female - and 63 opposite sex unions.
There were 77 civil unions registered overseas, bringing the total to 393 registrations.
There have been 1249 civil unions since laws legalising them came into force in April 2005, made up of 1016 same sex unions, 231 opposite sex unions and two transfers from marriage.
The total number of divorces for last year numbered 9600, slightly down on the average annual rate of 10,000 for the last decade.
Divorces hit an all-time high of 12,400 in 1982 after marriages were allowed to dissolve on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.
Mr Bascand noted that about one third of New Zealanders who married in 1982 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary - 25 years.
- NZPA
 

ACT forced to axe civil union laws
By Adam Gartrell | May 04, 2008
THE ACT government has been forced to abandon plans to legally recognise same-sex civil union ceremonies after the Rudd government refused to support the move.
ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell today said the Commonwealth had given him clear advice it intended to override the laws if passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly.

The ACT government originally passed its Civil Partnerships Bill in 2006 but it was disallowed by the Howard government.

Mr Corbell had hoped the new Federal Government would take a different approach, especially after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised in December not to interfere with state and territory legislation.

But Mr Corbell said the ACT had been presented with a "stark choice" by the new government: proceed with the legislation and face certain veto or change the legislation.

"Given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Government to consider any compromise the territory has decided to amend its legislation to provide for a form of civil partnerships without ceremony," Mr Corbell said.

"This will allow gay and lesbian couples in Canberra to legally formalise their relationships and unequivocally demonstrate their legal status so as to access Commonwealth superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms."

Mr Corbell condemned the federal government's stance, accusing it of resorting to "undemocratic nineteenth century colonial style power" to override legislation which had the clear support of the majority of the ACT Legislative Assembly.

Mr Corbell said he had directed his department to make arrangements for administrative ceremonies to be conducted.

"These ceremonies will have no legal status but will provide couples with the opportunity to publicly reaffirm their written declaration of commitment."
Mr Corbell said he expected the amended bill to be debated and passed on Thursday next week.

Comment was being sought from federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland.
 

I do becomes I don't think so for Kiwis

5:00AM Saturday May 10, 2008

By Simon Collins

Jon Morgan and Vicki King's wedding won't be entirely conventional. Photo / Sarah Ivey

New Zealanders are drifting slowly away from formal marriage - and the new option of a "civil union" seems to have made no difference.

Statistics New Zealand said this week that the number of civil unions of NZ residents dropped from 374 in the first full year when they were legally possible (2006) to 316 last year - just 1.5 per cent of the number of traditional marriages.

"The civil unions legislation has proved to be a white elephant," trumpeted Bob McCoskrie of the conservative lobby group Family First.

But marriage is not faring too well either. A long-term analysis prepared for the Weekend Herald by Statistics NZ shows that by far the biggest trend in personal relationships in the past quarter-century has been a relentless rise in de facto partnerships.

The proportion of New Zealanders of 15 and over living with their legally married spouses has dropped from 59.5 per cent in 1981 to just 47.5 per cent in the 2006 Census.

The proportion living in de facto relationships has risen from 3.9 per cent to 13.1 per cent.

Those who were not living with a partner at all (classed as "single" in the table) rose from 36.6 per cent in 1981 to 42.4 per cent in 1991, as rising unemployment made many men apparently "unmarriageable".

But this number has dropped back steadily to 39.4 per cent in line with falling unemployment since then.

The 878 people who had had 439 civil unions between them by the time of the 2006 Census represented just three in every 10,000 people, or 0.03 per cent of those aged 15 or over.

Marriage remains far more popular than either de facto relationships or civil unions, accounting for 78.4 per cent of all those living in partnerships of any sort.

Celebrants Association secretary Keith King, a Hamilton Anglican priest who left his wife 12 years ago and entered a gay relationship, said most couples still wanted security.

"Always when I ask people why are you getting married, most people say it's because they want the stability of marriage," he said.

"We live in uncertain times with climate change, food shortages and so on. People are looking for security. They see marriage as an ancient institution, and I think they see that as providing some stability in their lives when everything else around them seems to be falling to pieces."

But he believes that civil unions will become more popular gradually.

"It's a huge culture shift," he said. "Let's face it, it takes years and years for culture shifts in the mainstream to happen, and to expect civil unions to take off over a five-year period is ridiculous." The evidence is that such a culture shift has already happened for de facto relationships. A UMR poll last year found that 78 per cent of New Zealanders, compared with only 59 per cent of Americans, now believe it is "morally acceptable" for unmarried men and women to have sex.

The proportion of Kiwi babies being born outside legal marriage has risen from less than a quarter (22.5 per cent) in 1981 to almost half (47.2 per cent) in 2006, giving New Zealand the sixth-highest rate of births outside marriage in the developed world. Only Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and France were higher.

Statistics NZ demographer Robert Didham said the figures also suggested a trend away from partnerships of all kinds, as the proportion of "singles" had still not fallen back to the levels seen before the economic upheaval of the late 1980s and early 90s.

Victoria University economist Paul Callister suggested many of the men affected when low-skilled jobs disappeared in the 1980s might never have got back into standard employment.

But the growth of "singlehood" could also reflect changing social choices.

THE TRADITIONAL WEDDING HAS A CERTAIN RING ABOUT IT

Vicki King has a gay father and children from previous relationships. But she and her partner Jon Morgan have still chosen to have a traditional marriage.

"I'm on the liberal side, definitely, and I said to Jon, 'Would you look at a civil union?"' she said.

"He was like flat out: 'No.' It was not even worth thinking about for him. And for me, as well, there is still that element in your head. It doesn't have the name. You can't say, 'We're getting civil-unioned' the way you can say, 'We're getting married'."

Ms King, 33, had a daughter, Phoenix, now 12, in a de facto relationship. "I was young and got pregnant," she said. "I got married to another man and we had a child together [son Charlie, now 7], but that marriage didn't work out.

"Then I met Jon about a year and a half ago, and we have just had a little girl [Willow] three months ago. Jon and I are going to get married later this year."

They are not religious and plan to marry either at Willow Glen, a Hamilton restaurant and reception centre which they have taken over from Ms King's father Keith, or in the Pacific Islands.

It won't be conventional. Mr Morgan, 28, plans to stand at the front with baby Willow instead of a best man, and Ms King will join him with her two older children instead of her father.

Ms King will become "Mrs Morgan" and the children will add the name "Morgan" to their existing names. "It will be easier at school, and if they want to use it when they're older, they can."

MARRIAGE JUST 'DIDN'T FIT', SAY COUPLE

Hayden Wilson and Amanda Kent describe themselves as " husband" and "wife" even though they have had a civil union, not a marriage.

The Wellington couple were one of 63 heterosexual couples who opted for a civil union last year. They did it because marriage just "didn't fit".

"I guess it's about other people's perceptions more than ours," said Ms Kent, 33, who manages quality and diversity policy for the State Services Commission.

"Marriage is seen as being very, very traditional and I'm not traditional in any sense of the word. I've never done things the way things should be done."

Mr Wilson, a 32-year-old lawyer, said he wanted a ceremony that was free of any religious connotations and did not exclude the couple's gay friends who still cannot get married.

Both partners have lived in previous relationships and Ms Kent has an 8-year-old son from one of them.

But after six years together, she and Mr Wilson wanted to tell their friends and family publicly that "this is forever".

They did it on a Friday night. Their guests were asked to be there at 7pm, and Mr Wilson, Ms Kent and her son "rocked in while everyone was standing around drinking" half-an-hour later.

They both made speeches, and both ended by turning to the other and saying "something along the lines of, 'Here, in front of our friends and family, I choose you'," Ms Kent said.

"It took a few months after that to sort out the language. We still had this whole, 'This is my partner ... ' What do I say?" In the end they dropped the word "partner", partly because of confusion with professional partners in Mr Wilson's law firm.

"We describe each other as 'husband' and 'wife'," Ms Kent said.

"I think most people wouldn't even query whether our relationship is a civil union or a marriage or a de facto relationship."

Gay unions accepted but don't use our symbolism
 
Tim Dick
May 8, 2008
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Marriage is for one man and one woman. It is not for two men or two women, unless one is no longer a man or woman. A woman born a man may marry a man, as long as he remains a man, and she keeps taking her hormones.
The only way gays may marry in Australia is by sex-change, a rather extreme declaration of love, and anything that even "mimics" marriage is likewise banned.
The federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, said last week his government would make 100 or so changes to tax, social security and other laws to stop discriminatory treatment of gay couples. The changes are welcome and enjoy bipartisan support. But he has scuppered civil unions.
"We don't support a measure that mimics marriage," he told The 7.30 Report, which sounds a lot like: "you're not welcome in our marriage club, and don't start one of your own."
That notable gay-rights activist, George Bush, said in 2004: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do."
But the Rudd Government is doing precisely that, forcing the ACT to water down its second attempt at introducing civil partnerships, and making things tricky for its senior minister, Penny Wong.
In 2006, Wong said the Howard Government was more extreme and conservative than Bush for having the Governor-General invalidate the ACT's first attempt. When asked this week whether her government was too, she concentrated on the 100 changes.
Meanwhile, Labor does "positively encourage" a nationally consistent system of relationship registration, an unfortunate term more often used for dogs, although there's no proposal to microchip gay couples.
McClelland said such a system might be for more than gay couples. It might be for financially dependent carers, or good friends or two firemen who pretend to be gay to get benefits (as in last year's Adam Sandler comedy, I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry).
This wider net is more palatable to the religious right, as the qualification moves from bonking to banking. It also increases the potential cost to taxpayers if it means Chuck and Larry, for example, qualify for the family Medicare Safety Net.
Both registration and civil unions would qualify couples for almost-equal treatment, but civil unions look like weddings. Ergo, they are bad.
The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, thought the attitude to civil unions would change with the government. In December, Kevin Rudd said this issue was for the states and territories. But Rudd's government has since decided to mimic its predecessor, and heavied Corbell to water-down his plan. It vowed to again override the legislation if he didn't
The Government must have noted the complete breakdown in civil society in New Zealand, Britain, France, Uruguay, Slovenia and all of Scandinavia after they introduced civil unions, or the destruction of marriage in Canada, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and South Africa, where homosexuals may wed.
The religious views espoused by Fred Nile, Peter Jensen or George Pell at least have some sense. They follow the written word of God, and Leviticus says it's an abomination for a man to lie with mankind as with womankind. (As is eating shellfish.) But this government is not the church, and Kevin Rudd, despite his poll numbers, is not God. Prime Minister is a secular job.
There is no logic in opposing civil unions while encouraging registration. The Government does not object to gay couples or legally recognising them, it just objects to the ceremonies. Its problem is with symbolism, not practicalities; this from a government which signed Kyoto, and said sorry. It does not want to be seen, even in a legally technical way, as starting gay relationships, but it's happy to recognise them if they exist.
Perhaps it's meant to cater to social liberals without offending those who don't buy the argument that encouraging more people to marry is conservative. Perhaps it will prove to be the Trojan horse that, in time, gives politicians enough comfort to let gays marry. Perhaps, but anyone who wants that - especially in NSW, a gay-rights laggard - should have doubts.
Corbell now plans Clayton's ceremonies, conducted by a registrar, without legal effect. One spouse will have to live in the ACT, to stop motorcades of Sydney gays heading down the Hume seeking something more permanent than porn and fireworks.
The pretend ceremonies will be just-for-fun, for brides, grooms, families and friends. But they mean Canberrans will soon - like Tasmanians already - have public declarations of their bent love recognised on a legal register.
Ask those who attend such a ceremony what they've just seen, and I reckon most will say a wedding. One day the government will grow up and say it, too.