First published August 1, 2003, in the New Zealand Herald.
If Peter Dunne (a New Zealand Member of Parliament) is to be believed, the Labor government "wants to tell us what to think." He uses about half his column of July 30 to condemn a proposed bill that would legalize gay civil unions. He also mentions the legalization of brothels and a possible measure on cannabis.
All this, he thinks, is tantamount to the government telling him how he is supposed to think about these issues. He asks: "Since when did a Government have a mandate to change the way we think?"
It?s a good question, but one that seems inappropriate for the issues about which he writes. Mr. Dunne is free to think anything he wants about gay relationships. The law can't change his views or the views of anyone who agrees with him. His thinking is left free from State interference.
But it appears that what bothers Mr. Dunne is that he fears the law diminishes his ability to control what other people think. Note what he said about the matter: "It may be called a civil union, but does anyone believe for one moment that gay couples who 'unite' under this law won't consider themselves to be married?"
No doubt that gay couples so united will consider themselves married. That is what he finds troubling. Other people will think differently from himself. In this case he's worried what gay couples will consider, or think, about their relationship. I suspect this is the crux of the matter for him. The legislation will not, and cannot, change his views but it may mean that other people will think differently. While claiming the right to think as he wishes Mr. Dunne wants to prevent gay couples from thinking differently about the matter.
The United Future* leader says that government expansion of social freedom is "pink-think of the worst kind." Well, not quite. Anti-gay legislation was common throughout the socialist world. Castro might even think Mr. Dunne a bit soft on the matter. The Communist Chinese used to execute homosexuals. The Soviet regime was not infected by such "pink-think" either. The extreme Left would have looked favorably on the views of Mr. Dunne in regards to gay civil unions. Marxists the world over were frequently social conservatives. It fit their big government agenda quite nicely.
In the few cases Dunne mentioned the Labor government has things right. They are expanding individual freedom, albeit not as much as they?d like to pretend.
Freedom is freedom. It is exhibited in issues that we consider social and others that we consider economic. A consistent application of the freedom principle would support both economic liberty and social liberty. It's exhibited in the slogan: Free Minds, Free Markets.
Government is not the final arbitrator of what is or is not moral any more than it should determine what goods a shop offers to consumers. Its primary function is the protection of the life, liberty and property of individuals. Gay civil unions, or prostitution for that matter, do not infringe Mr. Dunne?s rights. He is left free to think as he wishes even if some of us believe his thinking more indicative of the Dark Ages.
The virtue of a free society is that it allows for diversity of opinion. Mr. Dunne should be free to enter into the relationships he values but not prevent others from doing the same. He?s free to associate with those of his own choosing and the same is true for the rest of us.
Far from exhibiting "pink-think" on these matters the government is, for a change, more liberal than socialist. For that they should be applauded. It does, I think, behoove us to try and persuade them to apply these same liberal principles across the board. There is "pink-think" in Wellington but it is exhibited in issues like higher taxes, more welfare, and more regulation. About the only area where Labor is not exhibiting this "pink-think" revolve around the issues that upset Mr. Dunne.
I fully agree with Mr. Dunne when he says: "It is not the role of government to change the way we think. That is a prerogative that can only be exercised by ourselves."
I anxiously anticipate United Future proposals to abolish the censorship board and all such legislation. Or is this an area where "pink-think" appeals to him?
* United Future (UF) is a political party and represents what most people would call the Religious Right. They currently are part of the ruling coalition along with the leftwing Labor Party.