Gay marriage Bill passes

[cowpatz]

So 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.

[huff3r]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Apr 19 2013,9:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Over 75% of NZ'rs did not want this bill to pass.

Where did you get this figure from? Every poll I've seen has shown it to be the opposite. Without a referendum no-one will ever actually know the figure, so as far is I'm concerned this figure is as much a guess as anything.

[SA227]

I just want to know how come this law can be implemented in a matter of months but the mondayisation of Waitangi and ANZAC day, which affects everybody takes two years?

[toprob]

QUOTE (SA227 @ Apr 19 2013,9:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just want to know how come this law can be implemented in a matter of months but the mondayisation of Waitangi and ANZAC day, which effects everybody takes two years?

I could be wrong (I often am), but I thought that this was just because it isn't relevant until then, in that these days don't fall on the weekend?


To cowpatz -- it does seem a little strange that you'd bring this here after the event, when the vote is in, it's all over. You certainly haven't added anything to the debate, and your 75% 'fact' kind of undermines your credibility.

However, you may be right in a way -- it does work well for the politicians, that Maurice Williamson can become the world-wide face of NZ Marriage Equality is kind of bizarre, given that the nats were not the bill's biggest proponents. They took what they thought was a lemon and now they are swimming in lemonade, you have to be a bit proud of them.

I was certainly proud of NZ while watching the debate, in a way which I haven't felt for a long time. We were due for a good-news story which frankly doesn't hurt anyone. The people made it a big issue, not the government, which is the way it should be.

The final word has to go to this guy, whose bumbling inanities and vague threats about the future really do put the nail in the coffin of religion for me.

[Splitpin]

QUOTE

I could be wrong (I often am), but I thought that this was just because it isn't relevant until then, in that these days don't fall on the weekend?[/quote]
excellent point and you are indeed right

[Splitpin]

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 19 2013,11:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong (I often am), but I thought that this was just because it isn't relevant until then, in that these days don't fall on the weekend?


To cowpatz -- it does seem a little strange that you'd bring this here after the event, when the vote is in, it's all over. You certainly haven't added anything to the debate, and your 75% 'fact' kind of undermines your credibility.

However, you may be right in a way -- it does work well for the politicians, that Maurice Williamson can become the world-wide face of NZ Marriage Equality is kind of bizarre, given that the nats were not the bill's biggest proponents. They took what they thought was a lemon and now they are swimming in lemonade, you have to be a bit proud of them.

I was certainly proud of NZ while watching the debate, in a way which I haven't felt for a long time. We were due for a good-news story which frankly doesn't hurt anyone. The people made it a big issue, not the government, which is the way it should be.

The final word has to go to this guy, whose bumbling inanities and vague threats about the future really do put the nail in the coffin of religion for me.

" Maurice Williamson can become the world-wide face of NZ Marriage Equality is kind of bizarre" Your right there Robin ...... i thought he did well , particularly his "burn in hell for eternity" comment .

[cowpatz]

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 19 2013,11:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To cowpatz -- it does seem a little strange that you'd bring this here after the event, when the vote is in, it's all over. You certainly haven't added anything to the debate, and your 75% 'fact' kind of undermines your credibility.

I didn't realise that my credibility would be determined by one 'fact'. NZHerald digi poll over 75% against. John Campbell live poll 78% against. Keep in mind that these are also techie polls using media that most of the conservative older folk would not normally use.
Given that you and I were denied the chance to vote (and thus get a true and fair indication) or even be accurately polled, we will have to live with what we read as being the closest we have to fact. I think I have added to the debate by possibly clearing up some misconceptions that some people may have. Why sweep it under the carpet now the bill has passed?
Seems like you may be a victim of a great propaganda campaign Rob

I agree with your comments on Maurice Williamson. Quite bizarre and it looks like the word 'rainbow' will now be synonymous with the gay movement along with 'gay' and 'hero'.

Grab yourself a copy of Eve's Bite by Ian Wishart (arguably NZ's best investigative journo). I can't say I subscribe to everything in his book but it is great to see a different perspective on things. It is a well researched and referenced book. One section deals with the origins of the gay rights movement and is a bit of an eye opener.

The priest in the video was certainly not the most articulate or enlightened individual however one point he made sticks out. For centuries marriage between a man and a women has been a sacred bond of the highest order and a foundation block within society as the starting point of the family unit. This centuries old tradition, and all that it means to many people, was changed by 121 politicians in Wellington. My point is something as significant as this should have been made available for all of us to have a vote on.

[toprob]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Apr 19 2013,12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't realise that my credibility would be determined by one 'fact'.

"Undermined' rather than 'determined.' You could argue that if you started 100% credible, your one and only 'fact' would bring this down to 75%:) Still enough for politics....

There are good reasons why I don't get into politics and religion on the internet, it just isn't the place (it is too easy a target) but what the hell.

I have my own opinions of Ian Wishart, and I think that calling him an investigative journalist is a real stretch, even amongst our admittedly poor selection of journalists here in NZ. I won't go on, as I'm sure to give offence to you.

Your post seems to support a public vote, which would really mean a referendum here in NZ. I guess it comes down to the importance of the issue, and I think this is where we differ. It isn't nearly as important as any one of a hundred issues which NZ faces at the moment, the passing of the bill is a win-win situation, where even those opposed can't really give a single reason why they would be impacted negatively by marriage equality. I don't know what percentage of NZers would ever get to consider a same-sex marriage, but let's say it's 15%. (Probably a lot lower, I'm not a huge fan of marriage myself, having been twice divorced, but I have nothing against others getting married). Those are the people directly affected, certainly not anywhere near requiring a referendum.

I have three children, they are all perfect in every way in my completely biased opinion. Now they all have the right to marry if they wish, not just two of them who were previously deemed to have this simple right. How does this affect you?

[toprob]

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 19 2013,1:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Undermined' rather than 'determined.' You could argue that if you started 100% credible, your one and only 'fact' would bring this down to 75% Still enough for politics....

Semantics really.

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 19 2013,1:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have my own opinions of Ian Wishart, and I think that calling him an investigative journalist is a real stretch, even amongst our admittedly poor selection of journalists here in NZ. I won't go on, as I'm sure to give offence to you.

Not offended at all. He is only the journo that broke open one of the biggest tax avoidance/evasion schemes NZ has ever known...The Winebox affair. Sparked a commission of inquiry and probably NZ's biggest court case. Arthur Allan Thomas. Kahua twins murders. Quite possibly he isn't the best but his research is exhaustive. Can you name a better?

QUOTE (toprob @ Apr 19 2013,1:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your post seems to support a public vote, which would really mean a referendum here in NZ. I guess it comes down to the importance of the issue, and I think this is where we differ. It isn't nearly as important as any one of a hundred issues which NZ faces at the moment, the passing of the bill is a win-win situation, where even those opposed can't really give a single reason why they would be impacted negatively by marriage equality. I don't know what percentage of NZers would ever get to consider a same-sex marriage, but let's say it's 15%. (Probably a lot lower, I'm not a huge fan of marriage myself, having been twice divorced, but I have nothing against others getting married). Those are the people directly affected, certainly not anywhere near requiring a referendum.

"It isn't nearly as important as any one of a hundred issues which NZ faces at the moment, the passing of the bill is a win-win situation, where even those opposed can't really give a single reason why they would be impacted negatively by marriage equality."
Some people may find homosexuality offensive (they put up with it but do not want to to further legitimize it by allowing gay marriage which up until now was the sole domain of Hetrosexuals). Not my view but one held by many and they are entitled to have that view. Then there is the religious and cultural aspects. For better or worse we live in a multicultural society and some of those cultures will be deeply offended by the concept of gay marriage. They are just as entitled to have and express their views.......it's democracy warts and all.
With an election just around the corner it would have been quite simple and cost effective to hold a referendum...you could put asset sales in there too (I wont go there). It might not be important to you but it is to others; enough so to voice their views and have valid concerns.

QUOTE

I have three children, they are all perfect in every way in my completely biased opinion. Now they all have the right to marry if they wish, not just two of them who were previously deemed to have this simple right. How does this affect you?[/quote]

It affects me Rob, and everyone else here in NZ, because legislation has been changed. It is a change to my beliefs and customs and I will have to put up with it whether I like it or not.
From what I have seen most NZ'rs (or at worst half) did not want this to pass and all would have their own reasons as to how it will affect them.

Maybe this might help to give some perspective and also make some of the "bumbling inanities" of the interviewed priest understandable.

Last edited by cowpatz on Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[toprob]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Apr 19 2013,3:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a change to my beliefs and customs and I will have to put up with it whether I like it or not.

In what way? Which of your beliefs has changed? I would be surprised if anyone had to change any of their fundamental beliefs as a result of this bill. Should change, perhaps, but must change, no.

None of NZ's religious folk, or even gay-haters for that matter, need to change anything, except those who want to face up to the idea that it might be time to review some of their beliefs. We can hope, but I don't expect this to happen much.

By the way, I don't imagine that anyone would change their minds from this discussion on NZFF, but I do appreciate your link. I wouldn't talk about a subject like this without believing that I had a fair understanding of the issue, built over 50 years, but I am aware that some people tend to wade into discussions based on some knee-jerk, 'ooh yuck' reaction, with no conscious thought behind it.