Friday, April 23, 2004
If the Warriors say you can’t have the benefits without the commitment...
The Warriors Rugby League team sacked star player Ali Lauitiiti this week because he was not prepared to commit himself 100 percent to the team’s vision. They were not prepared to extend the benefits which come from being a Warrior player to someone who was not prepared to make a full commitment. The All Black selectors have done exactly the same in times past. No-one thinks there is anything strange in that.
The same thing happens in the business world. When you apply for a job, the employer wants to know that you are going to give 100 percent to the job. In return, you get lots of benefits. No commitment, no benefits. The same goes for a business firm trying to land a government contract. The government wants full commitment from its supply firms before it hands out the benefits.
So why do we think that the same principle should not apply to marriage?
The New Zealand government is changing the rules so that anyone in any kind of relationship can have all the benefits of marriage, but without any commitment. Under the new Omnibus Bill (which is being introduced together with Civil Unions), anyone in any kind of relationship – including de facto – will have full access to all the privileges and benefits previously attached to marriage.
There is no other sphere of life where we (or the government) would countenance giving benefits to people who won’t make a commitment. Why here?
The Warriors Rugby League team sacked star player Ali Lauitiiti this week because he was not prepared to commit himself 100 percent to the team’s vision. They were not prepared to extend the benefits which come from being a Warrior player to someone who was not prepared to make a full commitment. The All Black selectors have done exactly the same in times past. No-one thinks there is anything strange in that.
The same thing happens in the business world. When you apply for a job, the employer wants to know that you are going to give 100 percent to the job. In return, you get lots of benefits. No commitment, no benefits. The same goes for a business firm trying to land a government contract. The government wants full commitment from its supply firms before it hands out the benefits.
So why do we think that the same principle should not apply to marriage?
The New Zealand government is changing the rules so that anyone in any kind of relationship can have all the benefits of marriage, but without any commitment. Under the new Omnibus Bill (which is being introduced together with Civil Unions), anyone in any kind of relationship – including de facto – will have full access to all the privileges and benefits previously attached to marriage.
There is no other sphere of life where we (or the government) would countenance giving benefits to people who won’t make a commitment. Why here?
