Editing Talk:Civil union in New Zealand

{{Talk header}}{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=high|politics=yes|politics-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
}}
==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. - [[User:Montrealais|Montr&eacute;alais]] 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. [[User:Ben Arnold|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. —[[User:Christiaan|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. [[User:Lisiate|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.
[[User:Tweakie|Tweakie]] 24 August 2005

Absolutely. [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|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: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) [[User:Ben Arnold|Ben Arnold]] 00:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

==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? [[User:Lossenelin|Lossenelin]] 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I think you should keep "Civil Unions in NZ" and redirect Civil Union Act 2004 there. [[User:Kiwimw|Kiwimw]] 06:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
* Good idea, no one has objected so I'll go ahead. I'll make the link to Civil Union Act in this article an [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=200263&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a2004-102&softpage=DOC external link to the act] to aviod an infinate loop. [[User:Lossenelin|Lossenelin]] 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

: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.-[[User talk:gadfium|<span style="font-family:cursive; color:#808080;">gadfium</span>]] 06:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

: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. [[User:NZ forever|NZ forever]] 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

: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.
[[User:Calibanu|Calibanu]] 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [User Calibanu] 12.42, 12 September 2007 (NZST)

== Proposed merge of [[Civil Union Act 2004]] into [[Civil union in New Zealand]] ==

The two articles cover fundamentally the same topic; the act was introduced to create civil unions in the country, and civil unions are entirely the consequence of the act. As a result, there is a lot of overlap between the two topics, and not really any benefit to discussing the act as distinct from the broader topic. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 00:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' there is clear overlap with most of the content from the 2004 act article already being in the civil union article. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 23:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''', these articles should remain split, but I can agree there is a large amount of overlapping content between the two articles currently. [[Civil union in New Zealand]] should more broadly focus on civil unions in New Zealand rather than on law and in-depth discussion on how it passed through parliament, for example like [[Civil partnership in the United Kingdom]]. The [[Civil Union Act 2004]] should focus more in-depth on the legislation and parliamentary passage itself, like the [[Civil Partnership Act 2004]] and other articles on civil union legislation globally.
:I believe that the work that would otherwise be spent merging the two could instead be better used by improving the current articles. [[User:Carolina2k22|<b style="text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px #8e24aa; color: #8e24aa;">Carolina2k22</b>]] • [[User talk:Carolina2k22|<span style="color: #8e24aa;">(talk)</span>]] 08:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Carolina2k22|Carolina2k22]] Are there significant, in-depth sources missing from this? It doesn’t seem to be particularly important law outside of the topic of civil unions. (Although I say that as someone not working in family law.) 
::Also, this shouldn’t be a deciding factor, but I don’t think this would be a difficult merge. My attitude in a {{em|lot}} of cases is that we are better to work on a broader scope article, with the option to split off (again) there and available when that becomes necessary. I put readers above editors, but editors who work on this topic area should be better served by a more centralised article, than multiple articles to work across. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 07:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:HTGS|HTGS]] I think the main thing is that the actual law’s article lacks much in-depth coverage on the law itself. Much of the content in the Act’s article certainly belongs in the main civil union article and could be merged there. The act’s article is something that could largely be replaced by much more coverage on the act itself more and its passage through Parliament rather than the current broad coverage on civil unions in NZ that do belong in the main article.
:::But I do agree with your idea, it will likely be better to go ahead and merge the two articles together first, leaving behind a redirect and then splitting it off again afterwards. As regardless the Act’s article does need a re-write if it is kept. [[User:Carolina2k22|<b style="text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px #8e24aa; color: #8e24aa;">Carolina2k22</b>]] • [[User talk:Carolina2k22|<span style="color: #8e24aa;">(talk)</span>]] 08:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::I should also say: I don’t think that the encyclopedia needs in depth coverage of how most laws pass through parliament. We are an encyclopedia, and not a summariser of parliamentary record. 
::And I’m very glad to see you’re back! :) <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 08:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)