Marriage equality bill progresses

25 comments on “Marriage equality bill progresses ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   27 February 2013 at 2:04 pm

   There goes the neighbourhood
   • marty mars 1.1

     27 February 2013 at 2:13 pm

     with you in it that’s for sure

     “Louisa Wall, said the law change was an important milestone towards achieving a fairer, more equal New Zealand.”

     I agree and every milestone and step toward those goals is important. Congratulations to all who have supported this.
     • vto 1.1.1

       27 February 2013 at 2:16 pm

       I can’t remember the last time one of your posts was not a personal attack.

       And now you’re a stalker too.
     • vto 1.1.2

       27 February 2013 at 4:23 pm

       Fuck you’re a hypocrite. Equality for the genders all well and good. Equality for the races, now that s a different matter altogether isn’t it. The treaty makes one race special and you are all for that, no matter its fairness, equality or simple societal sustainability in the long term. You don’t care about that – you’ve said so on many occasions. You’re a proud racist yet you claim you’re for equality and align yourself here? ha.
       • marty mars 1.1.2.1

         27 February 2013 at 4:28 pm

         lol – you’re losing it. The treaty is about equality as is this bill – your bile is wasted on me how about saying something positive about the equality we are creating one painfully slow step at a time.
         • vto 1.1.2.1.1

           27 February 2013 at 4:45 pm

           No. You and what you represent are losing it. The treaty is not about equality clearly. Equality between one group of NZers on one hand and the Crown on the other is not equality. The fact that you do not grasp this points to your inadequacies, and the inadequacy of where the treaty and its current application is taking us.

           I loathe crude inequality and attitudes that refiuse to recognise others. Like I said just above, and you have confirmed again, you don’t care. It is ugly and regressive.
           • marty mars 1.1.2.1.1.1

             27 February 2013 at 5:30 pm

             🙄
           • QoT 1.1.2.1.1.2

             27 February 2013 at 6:14 pm

             I loathe crude inequality and attitudes that refiuse to recognise others.

             … says the person who refuses to acknowledge that being anti-marriage-equality is homophobic, and who kicked off this thread by saying “There goes the neighbourhood”. Riiiiiiiiight.
             • vto …

               27 February 2013 at 6:49 pm

               Such a simple. It was a joke. And stop ignoring what I say to suit your own agenda. I have never said I am anti-marriage-equality – go back and re-read what I said. It may be a bit subtle for you though. (and please go read the definition of homophobic. and take a note of Shearer’s view on it)

               And marty mars, keep ignoring the issue if you wish, you are just making a shit-heap for your mokopuna.
               • marty mars …

                 27 February 2013 at 6:56 pm

                 “I loathe crude inequality and attitudes that refiuse to recognise others.” Yeah that’s one of your better jokes certainly compared to the qc one.

                 Everyone is better off as we move to equality.

                 My composting toilet is used to replenish the land after suitable ‘curing’ and that is a lesson I’m teaching my son.
                 • vto …

                   27 February 2013 at 7:14 pm

                   I understand that for you to acknowledge something other than the status quo around the treaty is nigh on impossible – you have too much at stake, too much of a vested interest, you are too much inside the current machinations around treaty applications. That is clear.

                   Such an admission would see you compromised in front of your peers. I understand that and wouldn’t expect anything other than a long timeframe and joining with others before such an acknowledgment.

                   The creation of a special class of people, based on race and birthright, does not work and will not work again. This is the fundamental flaw. It is a fatal one for the treaty. It shouldn’t be a surprise given the circumstances around its creation and signing in northern New Zealand in 1839. It shouldn’t be a surprise that its designers were unable to foresee what the future would bring, especially given its rushed drafting.

                   You are not being blamed for this. It is a historical circumstance.

                   It will take some long time for this flaw to be acknowledged for a start, and then remedied. But it will happen.
               • QoT …

                 27 February 2013 at 8:56 pm

                 “It was a joke!” – the cry of people who set out to be inflammatory but can’t handle it when others aren’t impressed by how cool and edgy they are.
                 • vto …

                   27 February 2013 at 9:06 pm

                   The Queen of witty one-liners and not much else.
                   • vto …

                     27 February 2013 at 9:07 pm

                     Oh, and sarcasm, you certainly do that well too
2. McFlock 2

   27 February 2013 at 2:34 pm

   with any luck it’ll pass before key decides to have a schnapps election.
3. Rogue Trooper 3

   27 February 2013 at 5:39 pm

   progress (been following the various positions “religious” and other “let’s- keep-marriage- to -ourselves” commentators have been taking in the papers and well…most appear as one-eyed as the sheaves they attack) Personally, I adopt a Sherman on The Mount position! FFS, do people even give any thought to the forms “marriage” took in both the Old and New Testaments?; God loved David! As it is “found” now, marriage is a Social Construction! What piece of Social Construction are they not getting! All this prejudice makes me feel sicker than a dog at times.
   WHY CAN’T THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY ARE NOT FOOLS READ BETWEEN THE LINES? (inter-linear) .We even welcome members who Shock Horror! “live in sin” to our fellowship
   (well, the pastor and some of us do anyway).
   yes, he wept all right, he wept blood.
4. millsy 4

   27 February 2013 at 7:17 pm

   Excellent.

   Looking to crushing the god-botherers over this one, though they will put up a fight, like they did with civil unions and smacking.

   If 2 blokes (or 2 sheilas) want to get married, then what business is it of anyone’s? That’s how I see it anyway.
5. vto 5

   27 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

   Apologies to the marriage equality bill people for the thread-jack above. Well done, despite reservations and personal 2c’s. Fingers crossed these social changes work for the better..
6. The Al1en 6

   27 February 2013 at 9:08 pm

   Being single and straight, I have no vested interest in the marriage equality debate.
   Yet still, it’s pleasing to see NZ grow (up?) a bit more, adding to her proud legacy of equality.
   • Adele 6.1

     27 February 2013 at 9:36 pm

     The Allen

     adding to her proud legacy of equality.

     You surely jest, or are you saying “…our proud legacy of equality relative to the Sudan.”

     That the debate around same-sex marriage had to even occur suggests an ambivalence towards equality. Also the equality expected from the Treaty has yet to occur from a Māori perspective.

     That others fail to acknowledge how unequal their thoughts are – speaks volumes to the platitudes they walk on.
     • The Al1en 6.1.1

       27 February 2013 at 10:12 pm

       “You surely jest”

       I was coming from votes for women in a Victorian world etc…

       “That the debate around same-sex marriage had to even occur”

       Don’t know what to write. I want to say well of course it’s nowhere near perfect, and of course debate had to happen before change because of that, but given marriage equality is now widely accepted as an okay thing, and all in a relatively short period of time, there is a positive in there for sure.

       “Also the equality expected from the Treaty has yet to occur from a Māori perspective.”

       That I can’t help with, other than to say I see everyone as my equal and I wish you good luck.
     • vto 6.1.2

       27 February 2013 at 10:35 pm

       It is good that you speak of different equalities Adele. The equality promised to each party (Maori and the British Crown) under the treaty, under certain interpretation, has surely not been provided and you are right to pursue that. However the equality required between and within peoples in a complex society far removed from early colonial New Zealand is one not envisaged or dealt with under the treaty. This is its flaw. To try and mix these two particular equalities under the one Treaty is not the right approach.

       These two equalities need to be pulled apart and dealt with separately. That is a difficult task. They are not currently pulled apart and nor is it even acknowledged by many that these separate equalities even exist. It is this which is leading to trouble for our islands.

       This is the point I try to make. Unfortunately it seems difficult to get across.
7. shaz 7

   27 February 2013 at 9:42 pm

   I’m not absolutely not anti-equality but I question whether the right to take part in what I regard as an oppressive, social controlling and infantilising institution on an equal footing is such a great achievement. Look at where the right for gay and lesbian people to marry is being passed into law – here and in the UK. Notice something about the nature of government in those two countries. Bears thinking about doesn’t it.

   I recognise this is not a popular view on the left but having negotiated my way into and out of relationships without the intrusion of the legal system in my private life i deeply regret the fact that this is no longer possible. Legislation like this and the relationship property act mandates legalised marriage for all adults in relationships in all but name whether they choose it or not. Having to employ a lawyer to opt out of the legislation whwich madates marriage is the most ridiculous and unnecessary intervention of the state into private lives imaginable. In my opinion marriage is a conservatising social force that constrains far more than it liberates. The recent changes to the Social Welfare legisation which will see working people taken to court because someone who may or may not be their partmer is making a claim for a benefit is just further proof to me of the use of pro-couple legislation used uneccessarily as a tool of social control and a furhter reason for the undesirability of seeing marriage as the mandatory path for human relationships, the sole place for the expression of human sexuality and the expected course of action for adults. Well Yuk I say!

   Where there is a need for civil protections is for children and their parents – a different issue altogether.

   As Rosa Luxemburg. said ‘Freedom is always the freedom to think otherwise, 🙂
   • Adele 7.1

     27 February 2013 at 10:32 pm

     +9 (one less than a couple)
8. Rogue Trooper 8

   28 February 2013 at 12:39 pm

   11/ 7

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS