Best (so far). The bill passed well.

144 comments on “Best (so far). The bill passed well. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. QoT 1

   17 April 2013 at 9:08 pm

   +1
2. karol 2

   17 April 2013 at 9:11 pm

   Yes – he was surprisingly funny -especially the bit about someone saying the bill had caused the drought – except that it’s raining today.
3. r0b 3

   17 April 2013 at 9:14 pm

   Just tuned in. Apparently Banks was surprising?
   • karol 3.1

     17 April 2013 at 9:22 pm

     So far I have been surprised by a few speakers who have supported the bill. Flavell gave a Maori historical slant to his speech, referring to a same sex relationship in pre-European Aotearoa.
   • QoT 3.2

     17 April 2013 at 9:48 pm

     Recanted his historical bigotry and voted in favour. Amazing. Then Chester Borrows pulled a bullshit “I’ve changed my mind, I totally respect same-sex relationships” but still voted against. Wanker.
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

       17 April 2013 at 11:35 pm

       Ah yes the MP from Whanganui.

       And I heard Banks did the regrets thing over his foolish intemperate younger self. Wow. Just wow.
       • QoT 3.2.1.1

         17 April 2013 at 11:39 pm

         I think it worked because he kind of glossed over what he’d actually said as a younger, intemperate Banksy. It made the change of heart a lot more plausible.
     • Mary 3.2.2

       18 April 2013 at 10:10 am

       Borrows was so pissed he walked through the wrong door.
4. Te Reo Putake 4

   17 April 2013 at 9:21 pm

   Yeah, Banks was surprisingly good. As was Chester Borrows, the absentee MP for Whangaz. I think because everyone knows its going to pass, there’s a bit of a luv in going on. Winston really has been the only one to get the tone wrong, perhaps miffed at being shut out of the power price announcement tomorrow?
5. r0b 5

   17 April 2013 at 9:48 pm

   Well that’s done. Good. Congratulations to all!
6. karol 6

   17 April 2013 at 9:49 pm

   Good that you can find some good in it, Lynn. I liked the Waiata at the end.

   I am still not into marriage myself either, but it seems a positive step (even though some damaging prejudice still clearly exists), and something to celebrate.

   Then we can continue on with the struggles against the whole “neoliberal” nightmare.
   • lprent 6.1

     17 April 2013 at 11:20 pm

     Yep.
7. mickysavage 7

   17 April 2013 at 9:51 pm

   So …

   Well done everyone.

   The job is now to cement this new feeling of liberalism and tolerance into the rest of the Government’s policies …
   • Pete 7.1

     17 April 2013 at 10:16 pm

     Watch out, Nats, we’re going to tolerate the shit out of you.
8. Brett Dale 8

   17 April 2013 at 9:55 pm

   Well done to all MP’s who voted for this bill.

   A proud day to be kiwi!!!
9. Bill 9

   17 April 2013 at 10:10 pm

   Whatever happened to the fight for free love? The right to hold legitimate loves and relationships free from state or church sanction? I guess we gave that one up in a scamble for the socially constructed legal and social privileges as though their accessibility would somehow annul or at least mitigate discrimination and not entrench it. pfft!
   • karol 9.1

     17 April 2013 at 10:14 pm

     I didn’t notice there was any restrictions of love (amongst consenting adults), un-sanctioned by church or state.
     • lprent 9.1.1

       17 April 2013 at 11:28 pm

       Nor had I. I just cannot see the point when sex and/or love has to compete against programming,

       When we campaign against Microsoft, apple and Novell – and for free coding……

       Ummmm what were we talking about?
   • QoT 9.2

     17 April 2013 at 10:14 pm

     Because, you know, obviously it doesn’t matter if homophobia is entrenched in our laws, right?

     How marriage equality “entrenches” discrimination is, I’m sure, a faaaaaaascinating argument you’d like to explain further.
     • Bill 9.2.1

       17 April 2013 at 10:44 pm

       Historically free love was the right to form relationships without seeking the sanction of state or church authorities. Like contemporary relationships of whatever gender mix, the absence of that sanction introduced a default raft of legal disadvantages and discriminatons.

       But anyway.

       How does this move potentially entrench prejudice? That couple next door who are unemployed and gay but accepted as living as flatmates (gay relationships being hitherto kind of unrecognised in law ). No chance they are going to be targetted by the now indiscriminate state via WINZ zoning in on newly defined situations of co-habitation? Course not.

       And poor (eg, unemployed) gay couples are still going to be discriminated against in medical circumstances because they weren’t in a financial position to seek state/church sanction for their relationship and be married. And the discrimination could even be deepened now because a likely view could form that the only legitimate gay relationship in the eyes of the medical profession would be one marked by the presence of a marriage certificate.

       I’m sorry, but I can foresee a certain pulling up of the ladder in the wake of this legislation whereby the enabled middle classes sale off to bright new horizons of deeply conservative legal equality…..
       • QoT 9.2.1.1

         17 April 2013 at 11:05 pm

         newly defined situations of co-habitation

         I think you may have completely missed a good 10 years of NZ law there, mate.
         • Bill 9.2.1.1.1

           17 April 2013 at 11:12 pm

           In relation to WINZ and how they enact their legislation? No, I don’t think so.
           • QoT 9.2.1.1.1.1

             17 April 2013 at 11:15 pm

             Marriage is a pretty formal step. There’s paperwork and everything. If WINZ are going to punish people based on co-habitation, it’s a hell of a lot easier under de facto relationship definitions. So … you’re full of shit in terms of this legislation changing anything.
             • Bill …

               17 April 2013 at 11:28 pm

               I think you’re missing the point I’m labouring to make.

               Poor people in relationships don’t generally ‘own up’ to being in relationships if they’re on the dole because of the financial penalties that result. Gay couples were exempt from the stress and worry of being ‘caught out’. Now they’re not. And could be focussed on by WINZ more than heterosexual couples due to social prejudices.

               And in the medical realm, any prejudice (in terms of a partner having access/authority etc) may well be claimed to be ‘not happening’ and even deepened because any ‘legitimate’ gay relationship would, in the eyes of many med practioners, carry the mark of a marriage certificate.
               • QoT …

                 17 April 2013 at 11:42 pm

                 Gay couples were exempt from the stress and worry of being ‘caught out’.

                 And you’re missing my point: they absolutely were not exempt, because our law treats de facto relationships as roughly identical to marriage.

                 Marriage equality does not give WINZ any additional power to bully people who are living together because if they’re not married there’s no fucking marriage certificate. Ditto doctors. It is simply not possible, given your “arguments”, that this law increases homophobic treatment of couples.

                 I get that you’re on some fun-loving free-love bent, but seriously. Try to stick to Earth logic.
             • Mary …

               18 April 2013 at 12:10 am

               There is a problem with the civil union legislation (and now the extension of the Marriage Act to same sex couples) in that it’s an offence for someone in a same sex relationship to receive a benefit without declaring that relationship, that is, if the relationship is “in the nature of a civil union” and now if it’s “in the nature of marriage” also. In other words, a person who’s not in a civil union but is in a same sex relationship “in the nature of a civil union” is criminalised if they receive a benefit as a single person. The problem is that people who aren’t publicly open about their sexual orientation must “out” themselves if they find themselves in need of a social security benefit. This was raised at the time with Benson-Pope and Tim Barnett but was dismissed with “well everyone should be treated the same because this bill is about equality”. Ignored was the fact that the discrimination that still exists, and that was acknowledged by some of the MPs speaking this evening, is still strong enough for many to hide their sexual orientation. The benefit rules don’t take this discrimination into account and in fact, for gay and lesbians, represent one form of discrimination on top of another – ironic when the civil union and marriage equality legislation are about removing discrimination. Barnett’s response to this issue reflected that of a rich bastard liberal elite who didn’t care about the plight of the beneficiary scum. The answer to this problem is to apply the “in the nature of marriage” or “in the nature of a civil union” rules to same sex couples who are either in civil unions or who are legally married. When those in same sex relationships can truly be said to be free from discrimination then maybe everyone should be treated the same, but we’re certainly nowhere near that point yet.
               • weka …

                 18 April 2013 at 12:17 am

                 I think one solution is for someone to publish a really good guide on how two people can manage the structure of their relationship so that they fall outside the criteria that WINZ can do them on. Tricky, because the rules aren’t cut and dried, but there are some obvious ones around not sharing finances, and how that relates to raising step-kids.

                 “The answer to this problem is to apply the “in the nature of marriage” or “in the nature of a civil union” rules to same sex couples who are either in civil unions or who are legally married”

                 I thought I was following you (and agreeing) up until that point. Can you clarify?
                 • karol …

                   18 April 2013 at 7:26 am

                   This WINZ issue was always likely to be a problem as same sex relationships became more acceptable, whatever form that increased acceptability took. Old prejudices never usually go away completely at one point in time.

                   That doesn’t mean something like similar state & legal recognition of same and hetero-sexual relationships shouldn’t happen. It means that the struggle against anti-LGBTI prejudices should still go on.

                   BTW, I hope civil unions remain. To me it’s the preferable option if a legal union is needed for some reason – eg immigration. I also would like to see de facto relationships being an opt in, rather an opt out thing.
                 • Mary …

                   18 April 2013 at 9:06 am

                   Applying the benefit rules to same-sex couples but only when there is a legal civil union or a legal marriage ensures that same-sex couples who are not open about their sexual orientation are not criminalised.

                   Of course, getting rid of conjugal status within the benefit rules altogether with some form of individual entitlement is the best option but as far as the current system goes it’s unfair for people who are discriminated against already to be criminalised for not disclosing the thing that attracts that discrimination.
                   • weka …

                     18 April 2013 at 9:36 am

                     “Applying the benefit rules to same-sex couples but only when there is a legal civil union or a legal marriage ensures that same-sex couples who are not open about their sexual orientation are not criminalised.”

                     Except the whole point of WINZ’s approach is to pay less to defacto couples as well (which is the state well and truly sticking its nose into bedrooms). I doubt that what you are suggesting would be legal were WINZ to try and adopt it as formal policy. I still think that the best bet is for queer couples to learn the rules so they can avoid being defined as a couple. Really sucks, unfortunately.
                   • Mary …

                     18 April 2013 at 10:07 am

                     Yes, the point is to pay less to defacto couples, for the same policy reasons for paying less to legally married people. And yes, it probably would be unlawful not to apply the rules to same-sex couples in defacto relationships (or “relationships in the nature of a civil union” and now “relationships in the nature of marriage”). For this very reason I’m saying that there should be an exception for same-sex couples who are in such a relationship but who have not made their sexual orientation public. At present if one or two people who are in a same-sex relationship and that relationship is in the nature of a civil union or of a marriage are in need of social security they must declare that relationship (therefore declare their sexual orientation) even when they have not made their sexual orientation public. In fact, if they don’t, it’s a criminal offence. What I’m saying is that the rules should change to avoid this happening, and that the best way, from a policy perspective, is to pay benefits to same-sex couples only when the relationship is a legal civil union or legal marriage. I suppose you could add in there defacto same-sex couples who want their relationship recognised within the benefit system and opt to receive a joint benefit. The point is that those in same-sex relationships who choose not to be public about their sexual orientation should be forced to disclose it or criminalised if they don’t.
                   • weka …

                     18 April 2013 at 11:10 am

                     Still not sure how you could do that legally though. If WINZ stated that as policy*, then eventually they will get someone in a het de facto relationship taking them to appeals over entitlements and claiming unfair treatment.

                     * although if it’s in legislation, it’s not up to WINZ, it has to be dealt with by parliament.
                   • Mary …

                     18 April 2013 at 1:29 pm

                     Yes, having the legislation spell this out is precisely what I’m saying should happen, therefore yes again, if this were to happen a law change is required. I never envisaged anything else.

                     As far as discrimination goes, any claim would have to be under Part 1A of the Human Rights Act, which means that even if the policy was enshrined in legislation, it’s still subject to claims of discrimination. I think, though, that such claims would be unsuccessful because the exception/alleged discrepancy would easily be “justified in a free and democratic society” therefore be immune from meeting the test for discrimination. It would reflect the affirmative action principle in Part 2 of the HRA that exempts special treatment if that treatment is to protect an already discriminated group. That precise section in Part 2 wouldn’t directly apply because the claim would be under Part 1A, but the sentiment would be the same in order to apply the justification defence.
             • Populuxe1 …

               18 April 2013 at 10:59 am

               Otherwise I’d be going after half my flatmate’s stuff or vice versa
             • Mary …

               18 April 2013 at 1:36 pm

               That’s right, the Social Security Act was changed at the time of the civil union legislation to capture same sex relationships “in the nature of a civil union”. It already had “in the nature of marriage” so nothing’s changed: people in same sex relationships must declare their sexual orientation for benefit purposes and if they don’t it’s an offence, even if you aren’t yet out.
       • Shaz 9.2.1.2

         18 April 2013 at 10:22 am

         I support the legislation for those who want it but believe that marriage is a conservatising social force. Allied to the point Bill is making is that the NZ legislative situation now entrenches and mandates coupledom “model of marriage” relationships for everyone through the Relationships Property Act. This is not ideal. People should be able to negotiate their way into and out of relationships without state intervention.. The heavy hand of the state should be making workplaces safe and preventing slavery on fishing boats not effectively marrying people who don’t want their lives to be defined by that institution.
         • karol 9.2.1.2.1

           18 April 2013 at 10:33 am

           I’ve never been happy that the law was changed so that couples are automatically categorised as de facto after living together a couple of years. The default position should be opt in, not create the need to actively opt out.

           This law was made to make it cheaper and easier for the courts to manage property settlements on break up. So it’s all about property, not really about relationships.
   • Mary 9.3

     17 April 2013 at 11:17 pm

     If you let it go you’ll have what you want.
10. karol 10

    17 April 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Also a very good speech from Mojo Mathers about one of her daughters going to her first “formal” with her girlfriend and the impact of prejudice.

    Though I’m not keen on the white picket fence ambition.
11. TheContrarian 11

    17 April 2013 at 10:12 pm

    Someone like Draco suggests issues like this should go to referendum. I’d so and it failed…what then?
    • lprent 11.1

      17 April 2013 at 11:32 pm

      We pay some silly ‘representative’ pricks to do what?

      I tend to find the idea that referendums are any more useful than online polls or local body elections rather stupid.
      • Populuxe1 11.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 11:08 am

        That surprises me given your tech background and therefore all the mathy, logicky bits. There is no margin or error in a referendum, whereas polls are always conditional – eg, the much-used “everyone has cell phones now” argument, or the self-selecting nature of other kinds of polling. I sort of choke at trying to imagine human rights legislation decided by local body election – you’d have everything from Weimar Berlin to A Handmaid’s Tale (consider the absurdity of wet and try areas in the days when Gore had prohibition but shared a boundary with Mataura which did not.
    • Populuxe1 11.2

      18 April 2013 at 12:06 pm

      You recognise that the public isn’t quite there yet and introduce it again a couple of years down the track – just like they did in Washington State in the US. Just because it fails at referendum once doesn’t means it goes off the table forever.
12. millsy 12

    17 April 2013 at 10:22 pm

    Awesome.

    One for the consenting adults who just want to have intimate relations with each other without some bible waving god botherer hassling them.
    • TheContrarian 12.1

      17 April 2013 at 10:26 pm

      Not just god botherers but anyone who says “that’s icky and I don’t like it”. I don’t find homosexual sex particularly nice but I also dislike fondue but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        17 April 2013 at 11:32 pm

        I’ve reread your comment several times and still do not know what to think.
        • fender 12.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 12:33 am

          Yeah it’s a weird one.

          Sounds like he doesn’t like the idea but once he gets into it he finds it enjoyable? He’s told us he has a wife but who knows with this one!
          • Murray Olsen 12.1.1.1.1

            18 April 2013 at 4:46 am

            He’s saying that, even though he doesn’t like fondue, he doesn’t care if other people eat it. The clue is in the second person “you”.
            • TheContrarian 12.1.1.1.1.1

              18 April 2013 at 8:34 am

              What I mean is that god botherers think homosexual marriage is wrong but there is another subset who just don’t like the idea of homosexual sex so homosexuals shouldn’t get married.

              I don’t like the idea of homosexual sex either but that doesn’t mean I should stop others who do from enjoying the same freedoms I do.

              Hope that clears things up
              • felix …

                18 April 2013 at 8:50 am

                Have you considered trying heterosexual sex instead?
                • TheContrarian …

                  18 April 2013 at 8:52 am

                  I have it down to a fine art
        • millsy 12.1.1.2

          18 April 2013 at 8:06 pm

          Give the guy a break. He just isnt into blokes.

          Fair enough. Im not into Asian ladies, or women under 40. Everyone has their preferences.
13. Lanthanide 13

    17 April 2013 at 10:33 pm

    I’ll be so glad when this is done and dusted and we don’t have to keep hearing about it for months on end.
    • TheContrarian 13.1

      17 April 2013 at 10:41 pm

      Ha! Don’t be so sure. The ‘right’ (not really ‘the right’ but the religious because some of the right can encompass liberal social freedoms) will complain about the sky falling for some time now
      • QoT 13.1.1

        17 April 2013 at 11:03 pm

        Given tonight’s performances I must object in defence of people like Maurice Williamson, Chris Auchinvole, Paul Hutchison and Jami-Lee Ross. Right-wing but not conservative.

        It’s fucking Colin Craig and Bob McCoskrie we’ve got to worry about.
        • TheContrarian 13.1.1.1

          17 April 2013 at 11:08 pm

          Right Wing doesn’t always preclude one from being socially liberal.
          • QoT 13.1.1.1.1

            17 April 2013 at 11:20 pm

            Of course not. That was my point.
          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.2

            17 April 2013 at 11:27 pm

            Of course not, if you don’t mind burning in hell for eternity.
            • Populuxe1 13.1.1.1.2.1

              18 April 2013 at 12:08 pm

              Because all right wing people are religious? Hahahahahahahahaha
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2

          17 April 2013 at 11:26 pm

          Williamson has always been a bit of a renegade, but boy did he give a great performance. Auchinvole I’ve always regarded as somewhat over keen on pomposity – but that man came through with heart and all respect to him. I didn’t hear Hutchison or Jami-Lee Ross speak.

          Didn’t Nikki Kaye do well as well 🙂
          • QoT 13.1.1.2.1

            17 April 2013 at 11:29 pm

            Hutchison did a great lead-in to Auchinvole (they shared a slot) and was particularly impressive for noting the issues faced by intersex NZers. Jami-Lee Ross did OK but was rather upstaged by Williamson, with whom he shared a speaking slot.
            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2.1.1

              17 April 2013 at 11:31 pm

              Ahhhh, thanks, in that case I did hear Hutchinson, I just didn’t realise it at the time. Yep thumbs up from me.
            • Alanz 13.1.1.2.1.2

              18 April 2013 at 9:25 am

              Was good to hear JL Ross. So now I have to readjust the mental picture for that Parliamentarian to remind myself he is not:

              http://0.tqn.com/d/beauty/1/0/m/T/1/jamie-lee-curtis.jpg
14. rosy 14

    17 April 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Well done Louisa Wall and all who voted for this law.

    Especially well done if your speech managed to soften some of the discrimination that even one person might hold against consenting adults who have who have different lives and loves to themselves.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      17 April 2013 at 11:30 pm

      Yep I’ve always liked Wall. And let’s remember how frakking hard she had to walk the tight rope in her own too often conservative electorate to push this through. That’s called character and standing by principle, my friends.
      • gobsmacked 14.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 12:07 am

        Louisa has worked incredibly hard and smart on her bill, and we should not forget that. The vote margin makes it look “easy”, but it wasn’t. Starting with her own caucus, she had to win over not the bigots but the fairweather friends, the ones who say “yes, yes of course I’m in favour, but let’s not get distracted by this now …”.

        Stuart Nash might want to make a public apology soon. And Labour’s brains trust might want to compare how voters respond to the feeble flabby stuff, as opposed to the outpouring of positive energy and enthusiasm when somebody stands up for something, fights and wins.

        Congrats to all who made this happen. Proud day for New Zealand.
        • McFlock 14.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 12:57 pm

          Indeed.
          I suspect there might have been significant pressure on her to withdraw the bill from the ballot, based entirely on “not the right time for this” arguments.

          Good on her.
15. felix 15

    17 April 2013 at 11:34 pm

    By and large the Nats speaking were backbenchers.

    How come we didn’t hear from the front bench?
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      17 April 2013 at 11:36 pm

      Good point. How did the front bench actually vote?
      • QoT 15.1.1

        17 April 2013 at 11:46 pm

        Claire Trevett’s posted pics of the voting sheets.
        https://twitter.com/CTrevettNZH/status/324477444532862976

        So of party leaders, Key, Shearer, Turia, Sharples, Norman, Turei, Dunne, Harawira, Banks, all in favour. Only Peters against (if my celebration-drunk math is right). Someone more clear-headed can do front benches …
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 12:22 am

          Cheers QoT.
          • felix 15.1.1.1.1

            18 April 2013 at 12:29 am

            Labour front bench:

            Agin: n/a

            For: Twyford, Jones, Robertson, Shearer, Parker, Ardern, Cosgrove, King.
          • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.2

            18 April 2013 at 12:40 am

            Is Asenati Taylor on that voting sheet?
            • felix 15.1.1.1.2.1

              18 April 2013 at 1:20 am

              Yep, Lole-Taylor. Agin.
        • felix 15.1.1.2

          18 April 2013 at 12:25 am

          National front bench:

          Agin: English, Brownlee, Finlayson, Ryall.

          For: Joyce, Collins, Parata, Bennett, Key.
          • felix 15.1.1.2.1

            18 April 2013 at 12:46 am

            Rest of Cabinet:

            Agin: Coleman, McCully, Tolley, Smith, Guy, Bridges.

            For: Groser, Adams, Foss, Tremain, Kaye.

            Nat Ministers Outside Cabinet:

            Agin: Borrows, Woodhouse.

            For: Williamson, Goodhew.
            • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.2.1.1

              18 April 2013 at 12:50 am

              Cheers dude.
            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1.1.2.1.2

              18 April 2013 at 5:54 am

              So cabinet is split 50/50, even if you include ministers outside. Split along religious lines?
              • felix …

                18 April 2013 at 6:06 am

                No idea. English and Finlayson are catholic, the rest presumably worship Satan.
                • Alanz …

                  18 April 2013 at 7:58 am

                  Finlayson and Ryall voted against the bill !?
                  That is a surprise !!!
                  They should work on loving themselves more (not necessarily each other).
                  • felix …

                    18 April 2013 at 8:01 am

                    Funny old world. I’m sure they have their reasons.
                  • Lanthanide …

                    18 April 2013 at 8:15 am

                    Finlayson had a weak-as-dishwater excuse that he personally thought civil unions were sufficient.

                    Yeah, we don’t really elect you to parliament so you just vote on your own personal views, you know…
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      18 April 2013 at 11:42 am

                      That would be the Civil Unions he voted against then.
                  • Populuxe1 …

                    18 April 2013 at 11:11 am

                    Given that Finlayson is openly gay Catholic and celibate (supposedly), he probably does, frequently.
                    • Tigger …

                      18 April 2013 at 11:52 am

                      Finlayson literally just voted to deny himself equality. I feel immensely sad for the man.
            • grumpy 15.1.1.2.1.3

              18 April 2013 at 10:02 am

              I thought Borrows voted for???
              • Colonial Viper …

                18 April 2013 at 10:10 am

                He talked initially like he was going to vote for, but turned it around by the end of his speech to not.
              • felix …

                18 April 2013 at 10:11 am

                Nah, he gave a long-winded speech about how much he loves teh gayz but still voted against.
            • QoT 15.1.1.2.1.4

              18 April 2013 at 7:44 pm

              Ta Felix!
16. big bruv 16

    18 April 2013 at 7:02 am

    Well done to our MP’s and well done to Louisa Wall.

    This may well be the only time I will agree with a Labour party MP.
    • mickysavage 16.1

      18 April 2013 at 7:27 am

      You should try doing it more often Big Bruv. You will get to like it …
      • lanthanide 16.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 7:32 am

        Gay marriage, the gateway drug to liberalism? The mind boggles.
      • big bruv 16.1.2

        18 April 2013 at 6:54 pm

        There is no chance at all that I would get to like it Micky. Why would I want to be involved with a party of “self serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”?

        Nah, you guys pretend to care about the underclass (the same underclass that Clark said did not exist) when all you really want to do is steal more of my money so you can give it to them in return for their votes.

        I could never be a part of a party that has so many corrupt people involved in it.
        • QoT 16.1.2.1

          18 April 2013 at 7:45 pm

          So let me get this correct: in favour of marriage equality; still want to use the “gaggle of gays” comment as a criticism of Labour. The cognitive dissonance must be neck-deep on Planet Big Bruv.
17. The Al1en 17

    18 April 2013 at 7:49 am

    Common sense, even though you piss off and leave us to ourselves for far too long, when you come back, you’re still as glorious as ever.
    Now do something about child poverty and I might fall in love with you all over again.

    Viva revolution.
    • Alanz 17.1

      18 April 2013 at 8:05 am

      Yup, the NZ Parliament did well with marriage equality.
      Next, reduce income and employment inequalities.
      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 8:44 am

        And there’s the thing.

        Marriage equality as represented by this bill is achieved by a few relatively simple rule changes.

        Dealing with income and employment inequalities requires massive systemic change and interpretation of this thing called “the economy” which even (which especially) the experts are clueless at.
        • karol 17.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 8:49 am

          As much as anything it’s about changing the dominant narrative (for LGBTI people and for those on low incomes). That’s the main struggle. Then the legislation will follow, however complex it may be.
18. Peter 18

    18 April 2013 at 8:41 am

    Yes it does pass, thanks to the way Louisa steered it through the House, and 10 years of rapid social progress in New Zealand.

    But in return for getting this landmark bill through, what does Louisa get from Labour? She’s obviously a talented MP, but yet she remains on the backbenches, largely because she backed the losing faction in the last leadership spill?

    Pretty rotten I think.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      18 April 2013 at 9:05 am

      Compare the situation with that of David Clark, another first term MP who did a great job with the important Holidays Bill. That bill however was far less controversial and fraught. Nevertheless it showed Clark’s abilities, helping to further justify after the fact significant and early promotion.
      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 9:27 am

        My bad – this is not Louisa Wall’s first term as an MP.
19. James 19

    18 April 2013 at 9:05 am

    I dont think its a left – right thing as some have kind of inferred.

    Having said that – I’m of very right wing views, and personally not gay, nor do I have any gay friends (that I know of anyway).

    If I was a MP – I would have to vote in favor simply because I think it was the right thing to do.

    I have actually been shocked (just because of my ignorance on this) at how happy it has made so many people. It really put a smile on my face reading the news this morning.

    So – a big congratulations to Labour and esp Louisa for raising this bill.
    • infused 19.1

      18 April 2013 at 9:26 am

      I haven’t really been following it, but I was kinda shocked last night when they started singing in the chamber. I didn’t realise it was such a huge deal.

      Doesn’t bother me either way, I guess that’s why I didn’t pay attention.
    • Alanz 19.2

      18 April 2013 at 9:36 am

      Louisa has done well for the country.

      I watched live streaming after the Speaker left the seat and until the broadcast ended, and I could see there continued to be genuine engagement with her from parliamentarians from all corners of the House. They continued to approach her to give her hugs from when she was in the middle of the House and until she found herself on the other side of the chamber. It is quite evident she has worked closely and respectfully across the House. Truly a superb effort in making MMP work in advancing an issue of common good and public interest.

      There is hope for our parliamentarians.
    • felix 19.3

      18 April 2013 at 9:38 am

      Yep it’s not really left/right, it’s conservative/liberal.

      Pretty obvious split down the National/Labour line.
      • Populuxe1 19.3.1

        18 April 2013 at 11:15 am

        Nah, not even that – you could argue that same sex marriage is a conservative step toward heteronormalisation anyway. What it really is, is a victory of rationality and fairness over the vestigal “ick” factor.
        • felix 19.3.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 11:29 am

          Do you mean nah not conservative/liberal or nah not nat/labour?

          ‘cos it’s definitely split nat/labour.
          • Populuxe1 19.3.1.1.1

            18 April 2013 at 12:13 pm

            Not either. There are socially liberal conservatives, and socially conservative liberals. There are MPs who hate the idea and still voted yes, just as there are MPs who are personally for it but voted No with their party. Placing things on a linear spectrum never gives an accurate picture.
            • felix 19.3.1.1.1.1

              18 April 2013 at 1:26 pm

              Whatevs. The National party was split down the middle but leaning to the noes, the Labour party was almost unanimously ayes.

              Ascribe whatever motive you like to it but they was asked to votes and that’s be how they votes.
20. Brett Dale 20

    18 April 2013 at 10:08 am

    Last night is one of the greatest days in our country’s history.

    Every NewZealander should be proud to be a kiwi today.

    To those 77 Mp’s who voted for this bill, you are on the right side of History.

    This news has gone right around the world.

    What a great day for human rights.
    • felix 20.1

      18 April 2013 at 10:48 am

      Indeed Brett. Today we are all homosexual.
      • TheContrarian 20.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 11:30 am

        Really? I think I’ll stay hetero thanks.
21. gobsmacked 21

    18 April 2013 at 10:36 am

    BBC World Service radio last night:

    Main headlines – 1) Boston 2) Thatcher 3) New Zealand (“first in the Asia-Pacific region … passed by wide majority …”).

    We make world news about twice a year, and it’s usually an earthquake or one of Key’s blurts. So this was something very special. Check out the Twitter hashtags on “marriage equality” and similar. Huge response.
22. muzza 22

    18 April 2013 at 10:42 am

    Now this is finally out of the way, serious issues which are affecting NZ can be discussed!

    To those impressed with John Banks – Just shows that when its about a pet topic, they will lap it up from even the most ardent liar!

    In case you missed it, Banks was lying!
    • Populuxe1 22.1

      18 April 2013 at 11:23 am

      It was a serious issue – go fuck yourself.
      • muzza 22.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 12:20 pm

        Not in the greater scheme of things, its not!

        It was a diversion, aimed at creating the illusion of *progress*, among other things, and will make little, to no differnce for the well being of NZ’s future.

        Don’t mix my response (in with your transparent bias), by assuming I don’t appreciate that its important at an individual level!

        Best halster that aggression Hoss, or seek some help with it!
        • QoT 22.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 7:48 pm

          Because hey, if an issue isn’t individually important to muzza’s personal research project, fuck the obvious immediate good effects it has for plenty of other people, they’re not “the greater scheme of things”.
    • TheContrarian 22.2

      18 April 2013 at 11:28 am

      Like the chemtrailling program?
23. Pascal's bookie 23

    18 April 2013 at 11:22 am

    The tears of a Wingnut; a choral piece in many parts:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/04/general_debate_18_april_2013.html#comments
    • weka 23.1

      18 April 2013 at 11:30 am

      I got about half way through that long comment about how our proud history of freedom and equality is being lost because teh gayz or teh govt are insidiously making us believe what they want 🙄
      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 11:35 am

        Whining from insecure bigots. However, the silent political voices are the bankers and big business who couldn’t care less about same sex marriage.

        Wait until a political party tries a push on workers rights or monetary issues that they do care about.
        • kiwi_prometheus 23.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 12:54 pm

          Thats right CV scream bigot at anyone who disagrees with you.

          You’ve trashed marriage and patting yourself on the back for it.

          There was never a real debate or discussion. Just manipulative politics from a vocal minority in the Labour camp.

          The people of NZ shafted again.
          • QoT 23.1.1.1.1

            18 April 2013 at 7:49 pm

            It’s amazing how you can tell CV is “screaming” even though CV’s just typed in plain text with no emphatic punctuation or formatting.

            Oh wait, no, this is the bit where you’re so bereft of a point that you’re just tone-argumenting people, right?
          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 23.1.1.1.2

            18 April 2013 at 7:50 pm

            Holy tiny minority opinion, Batman!
      • Pascal's bookie 23.1.2

        18 April 2013 at 11:39 am

        I like too, how that fool (or maybe another), traces Western Glorious Tradition of Freedom (TM) back to the Rennaissance. Which in the context of the US Constitution, which they cite, makes no fucking sense at all.

        I guess tracing it back to the enlightenment would be too damn awkward.
        • kiwi_prometheus 23.1.2.1

          18 April 2013 at 12:55 pm

          Why does it make no sense in the context of the US constitution?
          • Pascal's bookie 23.1.2.1.1

            18 April 2013 at 7:15 pm

            Because the US Constitution is far more informed by Enlightenment thinking than Renaissance.
24. Tanz 24

    18 April 2013 at 11:53 am

    Well done to the few Labour MP’s who voted against this, seeing that NZ as a whole has been denied a proper say via binding referenda. Thanks to the National ones who did the same. Winston Peters is right, in that this has changed the game. Next year is going to be a very exciting time, with Kingmaker Peters twice over. Hope he becomes PM with CC deputy. Lab and Nat will both shed votes. Undemocratic NZ , once again.
    • kiwi_prometheus 24.1

      18 April 2013 at 12:57 pm

      Maybe in the future the law change can be reversed.

      Then they can go about it in a truly democratic sense and put it to referendum.
      • millsy 24.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 8:09 pm

        So would you recriminalise homosexuality as well?

        How about you and Tanz bugger off to Saudi Arabia, where gays are strung up with piano wire.
      • karol 24.1.2

        18 April 2013 at 8:35 pm

        True democracy is not about always catering to the majority. A humane democracy is inclusive, and cares for it’s most vulnerable members. A true democracy, is direct democracy where everyone has a say, whether they are in the majority or not.

        There’s a saying, “The minority is always right”. I don’t agree with the “always”, but it encourages me to look at things from a slightly different perspective, than assuming the “majority” is always right.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 24.2

      18 April 2013 at 1:29 pm

      😆 comedy gold.
    • Daveosaurus 24.3

      20 April 2013 at 1:28 pm

      New Zealanders have not been denied a referendum on this matter. If you feel so strongly, you can do what everyone else who wants a referendum has to do, and get up from your cosy spot in front of your computer and go and organise one yourself. True, it’s harder work than sitting behind a keyboard and whining, but if you really want a referendum, you can have one.
25. kiwi_prometheus 25

    18 April 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Winie Peters gave a great speech and summed up the situation nicely.

    I liked the way he wiped the smirk of Ms Wall’s face and the sniggering turned to silence when Winnie asked her about what support she had from the people of South Auckland.

    Telling, also, that the Gay “Marriage” agenda was kept under wraps leading up to the last election codified under “reviewing the property laws”.

    Why didn’t the pro gay marriage crusaders front up to a referendum? Too scared? All the huff and puff about a ground swell of support – yeah right.

    Now that you lot have hollowed out marriage, it now fits in nicely with a hollowed out economy, steadily taking down New Zealand society. 8(
26. kiwi_prometheus 26

    18 April 2013 at 1:00 pm

    The comments on the NZ Herald are really negative too, this one got the most likes by a mile:

    “Democracy fell in the streets last night. 36 List MPs who nobody voted for has more of a say on conscience than the electorate and people in the street who clearly were opposed 78/22 on last nights Campbell Live.”
    • Tanz 26.1

      18 April 2013 at 3:08 pm

      That’s the worst part, Kiwi, I agree. A handful of list MPs, not voted for by the electorate, hijacking our democracy.
      Was a win for NZ First though, they will gain a tide ofvotes, as will the Conservatives. The election next year will be worth waiting for.
      • karol 26.1.1

        18 April 2013 at 7:04 pm

        Tanz, how do list MPs get to be MPs? Do you understand MMP?
        • Tanz 26.1.1.1

          18 April 2013 at 7:40 pm

          Yeah, and its a rubbish system. If it wasn’t for MMP, none of this would happen. List MPs are chosen by party insiders, not voters, that’s why MMP is not democratic.
    • karol 26.2

      18 April 2013 at 7:03 pm

      I don’t have much faith in those non-scientific polls. Why are you being so selective? The poll on Stuff last night were clearly for the bill 70+/20ish.

      Tonight it’s for the bill: 66.3/29.4

      So, who ya gonna believe?

      Maybe last night the people for the bill were too busy getting ready to party, and weren’t watching Campbell Live?
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 26.2.1

        18 April 2013 at 7:47 pm

        Maybe Tanz believes anything that confirms their prejudice and discounts everything else. I wish I could be a fly-on-the-wall in November 2014 and watch the poor deluded sap react to the election results.

        Hey Tanz, enjoy this defeat, it emphasises your irrelevance. Why don’t you keep your prejudice to yourself where it belongs? 😀
27. Populuxe1 27

    18 April 2013 at 1:14 pm

    I want to know more about Winston Peter’s assertion that Walls didn’t present the bill to the Party Whip and essentially hijacked Labour. I mean, I’m happy about the outcome, obviously, but if there is truth to that it suggests some things are profoundly more wrong in Labour than we thought.
28. karol 28

    18 April 2013 at 7:12 pm

    And Maurice Williamson makes it onto Al Jazeera.

Links to post

1. Marriage equality – and the next steps « The Daily Blog: posted on 18 April 2013 at 9:06 am
2. Unsurprising reactions | Ideologically Impure: posted on 19 April 2013 at 7:02 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS