Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:06 amSo the bill got passed.
Apart from the right to be called 'married' and giving the fingers to the 'heterosexual dinosaurs' what did it actually achieve?
Because that is precisely all that has been achieved. A civil union affords all the same rights and protections as does marriage. In fact churches can still 'discriminate' so really it is a somewhat hollow victory. Many other countries do not accept it and in fact in some it would be downright dangerous to openly flaunt being married.
But what it has shown is how a small self interest group (those demanding "marriage equality" as not all gays want to be married) can misrepresent and distort fact as the liberals and politicians tie themselves up and trip over themselves in this PC BS surreal world we live in. Spin, propaganda, emotive manipulation and vilification are King. Fact is secondary.
How was something as divisive and controversial as this subject left to a conscience vote by politicians? What a contradiction in terms and completely undemocratic .
A. It implies that a politician has a conscience.
B. If he has a conscience it will be what he thinks will get him the most votes next election and least ridicule now.
C. Should an MP not canvass the views of his electorate first before exercising his vote on our behalf. The all important democracy bit.
Over 75% of NZ'rs did not want this bill to pass. Many of those in support did not actually understand what the Bill was attempting to achieve and mistakenly believed that the gay community currently had less rights other than just the "right" to use the term marriage.
Something as culturally significant as marriage and what it means to all members of society deserves much more than an MP's conscience vote. It needs informed debate and a national referendum. It could have easily waited until the next election.
Next up is the constitution. Another project that is being steered by a small self interest group that will have far greater significance. It will probably go the same way with no assurance or requirement for a referendum.
Before I get accused of being a homophobic dinosaur (which is what you are if you did not agree with the bill) I am not anti gay at all. I have no issue with homosexuals (well I admit I struggle at times dealing with those that go completely over the top with the camp bit
). I have friends that are gay, work with many and a step sister who is gay and in a civil union with her partner with which they are raising a daughter.
Apart from the right to be called 'married' and giving the fingers to the 'heterosexual dinosaurs' what did it actually achieve?
Because that is precisely all that has been achieved. A civil union affords all the same rights and protections as does marriage. In fact churches can still 'discriminate' so really it is a somewhat hollow victory. Many other countries do not accept it and in fact in some it would be downright dangerous to openly flaunt being married.
But what it has shown is how a small self interest group (those demanding "marriage equality" as not all gays want to be married) can misrepresent and distort fact as the liberals and politicians tie themselves up and trip over themselves in this PC BS surreal world we live in. Spin, propaganda, emotive manipulation and vilification are King. Fact is secondary.
How was something as divisive and controversial as this subject left to a conscience vote by politicians? What a contradiction in terms and completely undemocratic .
A. It implies that a politician has a conscience.
B. If he has a conscience it will be what he thinks will get him the most votes next election and least ridicule now.
C. Should an MP not canvass the views of his electorate first before exercising his vote on our behalf. The all important democracy bit.
Over 75% of NZ'rs did not want this bill to pass. Many of those in support did not actually understand what the Bill was attempting to achieve and mistakenly believed that the gay community currently had less rights other than just the "right" to use the term marriage.
Something as culturally significant as marriage and what it means to all members of society deserves much more than an MP's conscience vote. It needs informed debate and a national referendum. It could have easily waited until the next election.
Next up is the constitution. Another project that is being steered by a small self interest group that will have far greater significance. It will probably go the same way with no assurance or requirement for a referendum.
Before I get accused of being a homophobic dinosaur (which is what you are if you did not agree with the bill) I am not anti gay at all. I have no issue with homosexuals (well I admit I struggle at times dealing with those that go completely over the top with the camp bit
). I have friends that are gay, work with many and a step sister who is gay and in a civil union with her partner with which they are raising a daughter.