- Date published:
9:55 pm, August 29th, 2012 - 51 comments
Categories: equality, minimum wage, Privatisation - Tags: asset sales, gay marriage
Louisa Wall has had her first reading of the Marriage Equality Bill passed 80 – 40. History is in the process of being written…
Clayton Cosgrove’s attempt to entrench state-owned assets so that future sales require 75% of Parliament to agree failed by 1 vote: once again, Peter Dunne’s. Surely this just shows that the Government still has the likes of KiwiBank, KiwiRail and TVNZ lined up on the block for sale after the next election…
Now David Clark’s bill to get a $15 minimum wage is being debated, with David Bennett doing his best to justify why National’s empty benches will be voting against a bill that will reduce poverty in this country…
Good for the equality bill.
Although entrenching state owned assets is a good idea we actually need to go further and make it so that if any action by the government can be reasonably proven to be bad for the country before the government enacts it then that government gets done for treason if it enacts it. It’s time we started putting limits on the actions that the government can do.
And the minimum wage bill will fail by one over dunne MP as well.
I wouldn’t go so far as treason charges, but I would provide for measures to assess any legislation against its stated aims, with automatic reversal if such aims are not met. So, for example, when John Key lies that asset sales will help reduce debt, and the debt increases, boom – automatic repossession and reversal. The National Party’s lies about about the fiscal neutrality of tax cuts would similarly see that “policy” reversed.
A genuine holding to account would go a long way to ensuring that our laws are based on evidence rather than political loony-tunes.
Shame on Dunne. He shows in his recent votes and (non) statements on asset sales what he really stands for. JANUS! Just Another Neoliberal Unscrupulous Scammer.
You could leave the word “just” out of the acronym and then it would be even more appropriate, although I guess you are referring to his two faces 🙂
I watched the first reading of the Marriage Equality view live on TV. I found some of the speeches quite moving: e.g. Kevin Hague talking about the changes since he began his 20+years relationship at a time when he and his partner, if their relationship was known, could have lost their jobs and been put in prison.
It was also interesting to hear a couple of old conservative guys who were initially against the bill, who after investigating the issue, changed their minds.
It was fun to watch some twitter comments during the speeches: e.g.:
On Jamie Lee Ross’s speech in support of the bill:
On a conservative guy who spoke against the bill:
which got this response:
And I particularly like the comments in someone’s (?) speech/es about how it’s important to keep church/religion and state separate.
I think this highlights, what to me, was a dubious reason given by Chris Finlayson for voting against the bill: he said that marriage should be left to the churches, mosques etc. If that was the case, laws on marriage would be removed from the country’s (secular state) legislature. Also, there’s a clause in the bill saying churches can choose not to marry some couples if they decided they didn’t fit their definition of marriage. It’s Finlayson’s choice on he he votes, but his reasoning seemed weird to me.
I understand more and agree with the reasoning of the old gay guy referred to who said he was against the bill, and preferred civil unions because it didn’t have all the negative associations and baggage of marriage (gender inequality etc).
I also liked when a speaker referred to the large amount of support for the bill from young people who would be the people to be most affected by legal marriage equality.
Finlayson’s reason makes no sense. I’ve been to dozens of weddings where no religion was involved. So are none of those people married? Finlayson is one of the most unhappy out gay men I’ve ever met. He’s voted this way to ‘fit in’. It’s very sad.
But big props to Paul Hutchison for voting for it to make NZ a better place, especially for his words on suicide.
And now the PM is giving license to his MPs to get nasty in opposing the later stages of the marriage bill:
I guess JK just can’t stand that much amount of goodwill and respectful debate around a bill introduced by an opposition MP.
Nasty little man.
Too bad about the gay “marriage” thing. The “Life Style Liberals” and Feminist manhaters will probably get their way. Sign of the times, marriage is already in a wrecked state, this will be the icing on the cake for the aforementioned.
kp your own expectations and wanting to interfere in what other peoples relationships, are leading you to have these self destructive thoughts.
Where are all these feminist man haters is that your mother or sisters wife or daughters no its just plain bigotry.
You obviously come from a catholic back ground from what I have disseminated. The catholic church has a history of having women subjugated and gay bashing but their reality is they are to busy involved in every body else’s decisions while being hypocritical in their own actions.
Thats why people are leaving formalized religion in droves.
I’m not Catholic.
I’m not religious.
Why does everyone think you can’t oppose gay marriage if you’re not religious?
Have I put forward a religious argument? No.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a pivotal biological arrangement that you can’t pretend a man and a man are capable of.
“It’s a pivotal biological arrangement ”
No it isn’t. It’s a legal and social arrangement.
NO, the man and woman bit is!
“[ Marriage ] is a legal and social arrangement.”
For a man and a woman – it acknowledges that pivotal biological arrangement.
“Its about Luuuvvvv!” is usually the cry that goes up. It maybe about that too, but that isn’t sufficient. That pivotal biological arrangement is necessary. Without it, it isn’t marriage anymore.
To feel otherwise is self delusional.
Could you define the biological arrangement, KP? Procreation?
It includes that as part of those physiological and psychological complimentary differences unique to a union between a man and a woman.
how do intersexed and transgendered people fit into your biological arrangement?
They are a different arrangement obviously.
“They are a different arrangement obviously.”
Obviously…so you are happy to base your concept of marriage on the laughable concept of gender binarism?
Do intersexed and transgendered people get to ‘choose one of your teams’…or are they just not allowed?
“laughable concept of gender binarism?”
No its your Postmodern/Deconstruction nonsense trying to pass as Philosophy that is laughable.
It has been pointed out that when was the last time a philosopher spoke to an audience large enough to be called the general public?
Philosophy has been locked up again in the rarified environment of academia, slave to coffee table feminists.
“Do intersexed and transgendered people get to ‘choose one of your teams’…or are they just not allowed?”
Actually you’re philosophising right now.
You’re just not very good at it.
Tell me that you don’t think your last two sentences constitute an argument against marriage equality.
^ see above
hollering that it’s between a man and a woman is not an argument. It’s a dogmatic assertion.
Why is marriage between only one man and one woman?
Because of the unique physiological and psychological complimentary differences belonging to a union between a man and a woman.
These are necessary.
You won’t find them between a man and a man, you won’t find them between a man and 100 women, you won’t even find them between a brother and sister, mother and son.
Which really brings up the huge flaw in your claim that it is about rights and luuuvvv! From your stand point you can’t stop a brother and sister marrying or an uncle and niece or 10 people all together.
You’re still dancing around providing an argument. What differences? Why does marriage require (for example) one penis and one vagina? What authority restricts marriage from involving two penises?
“Historical decisions of the Courts are the basis for the existing bar, decisions that can only be overturned by legislative amendment.”
^ From wiki.
I suppose priest and child doesn’t count either
Oh oh, is that the Lifestyle Liberals next step?
After all its all about the lurvvv right? Like that stupid little sign the protestor is flapping “Let me marry who I love!” – like what, your Pomeranian? lol
k_p I’ve explained to you several times where babies come from but you don’t appear to have understood.
You still seem to think they come from “marriage” which is laughably naive of you.
Would it help if I drew you a picture?
I’m sure they supply you with plenty of crayons and scrap paper where you are kept.
Still no response, eh? I’ll try again:
Do you understand that people fuck regardless of whether they’re married? YES/NO
Do you understand that this fucking is where babies come from? YES/NO
Two simple questions that even a simple mind ought to be able to answer.
It’s so weird, whenever anyone asks k_p a question that provides an opportunity to back up the things s/he writes, s/he suddenly has to leave.
Then when s/he comes back it’s groundhog day again and it never happened.
That ‘s/he’ thing you got going there is kinda clumsy isn’t it? Why don’t you come up with a made up word instead, its what you feminists spend a lot of time doing in the Literature Department at tax payer expense isn’t it?
I wouldn’t know k_p, I’ve never set foot in a literature department and have no idea what goes on in one.
But why should I make up a word? I’m quite happy with my way of referring to people of whom I don’t know the gender. If you’re not happy then perhaps you should be the one coming up with neologisms.
ps care to answer the questions yet?
Aaaaand still no answer.
“You still seem to think [ babies ] come from “marriage” which is laughably naive of you.”
Where do you get this from?
From the many comments you’ve made on the topic where you’ve said that man/woman marriage is special because PROCREATIONZ.
The procreative functions of humans have been extensively studied and are very well understood. Marriage doesn’t really come into it.
Biology other animals primates as well have different sexual arrangements.
Humans are not much different .
Except we have bigotry.
By those who are scared of their own sexuality.
The Kinsey Report was the first to open the lid on human sexual behaviour.
why do queer people want to do straight things?
Its that feeling we all get when we feel shut out of some exclusive club. Or like the little brother who wants to tag along with his older sibling and mates.
kiwi, you never answered the questions yesterday about impairment in the workplace by drugs and alcohol. Are you going to? Or just leave it as a mindless empty confused rant?
My boss use to get stoned, said it made him ‘get in the zone’, concentrate better. That might have been his subjective experience, but he was just a pain in the ass to work with.
ok thanks for the clarification
Sounds like he was gay kp was it consentual
Well there is a strong association between drug addiction/abuse and homos oops I mean Omosexuals [ such a cold clinical term! ], but no he wasn’t. There was an office lesbian though, provided lots of entertainment, fought like cat and dog with her girlfriend old enough to be her mother, would bring all the drama to work.
^ She drank like a fish too.
Suppose you lot will claim it’s because she isn’t allowed to get married. 🙄
Thread lock time. All that matters is:
1. k_p’s view is that “the unique physiological and psychological complimentary differences belonging to a union between a man and a woman.” define marriage.
2. One of the mob made a good point in response: “so you are happy to base your concept of marriage on the laughable concept of gender binarism?”
3. The rest of the mob wants to have a go and fling childish insults at him and accuse him of avoiding the question.
One of the mob made a good point in response: “so you are happy to base your concept of marriage on the laughable concept of gender binarism?”
^ Don’t I get a chance to hit back?
After all like you say I’m getting mobbed, it takes awhile to get around to them all!
“One of the mob made a good point in response: “so you are happy to base your concept of marriage on the laughable concept of gender binarism?””
But its not a good point. It’s that clunky old 80’s Feminist deconstruction nonsense…is that the foundation of the Left these days and the push for gay ‘marriage’?