Marriage equality – how they voted

Written By: - Date published: 10:57 am, August 30th, 2012 - 165 comments
Categories: accountability, Ethics, human rights, john key, Parliament - Tags: , ,

The 80 to 40 vote in favour of marriage equality (at the first reading of the bill) is being described as a “near landslide”. For the record, the breakdown of MPs’ votes (courtesy of Stuff at the link above) is as follows:

FOR 80: Amy Adams (N); Jacinda Ardern (L); Chris Auchinvole (N); John Banks (A); Maggie Barry (N); Paula Bennett (N); Jackie Blue (N); Steffan Browning (G); Gerry Brownlee (N); Cam Calder (N); David Carter (N); Charles Chauvel (L); David Clark (L); David Clendon (G); Jonathan Coleman (N); Judith Collins (N); Clayton Cosgrove (L); David Cunliffe (L); Clare Curran (L); Lianne Dalziel (L); Jacqui Dean (N); Catherine Delahunty (G); Peter Dunne (UF); Ruth Dyson (L); Kris Faafoi (L); Darien Fenton (L); Te Ururoa Flavell (MP); Craig Foss (N); Julie Anne Genter (G); Phil Goff (L); Paul Goldsmith (N); Jo Goodhew (N); Kennedy Graham (G); Tim Groser (N); Kevin Hague (G); Hone Harawira (M); Tau Henare (N); Chris Hipkins (L); Parekura Horomia (L); Gareth Hughes (G); Paul Hutchison (N); Shane Jones (L); Steven Joyce (N); Nikki Kaye (N); John Key (N); Annette King (L); Iain Lees-Galloway (L); Andrew Little (L); Jan Logie (G); Moana Mackey (L); Nanaia Mahuta (L); Trevor Mallard (L); Mojo Mathers (G); Murray McCully (N); Ian McKelvie (N); Sue Moroney (L); Russel Norman (G); Hekia Parata (N); David Parker (L); Rajen Prasad (L);Grant Robertson (L); Denise Roche (G); Jami-Lee Ross (N); Eugenie Sage (G); Pita Sharples (MP); David Shearer (L); Scott Simpson (N); Lockwood Smith (N); Maryan Street (L); Rino Tirikatene (L); Chris Tremain (N); Metiria Turei (G); Tariana Turia (MP); Phil Twyford (L); Nicky Wagner (N); Holly Walker (G); Louisa Wall (L); Kate Wilkinson (N); Maurice Williamson (N); Megan Woods (L)

AGAINST 40: Shane Ardern (N); Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (N); David Bennett (N); Chester Borrows (N); Simon Bridges (N); Bill English (N); Christopher Finlayson (N); Nathan Guy (N); John Hayes (N); Phil Heatley (N)); Brendan Horan (NZF); Colin King (N); Melissa Lee (N); Asenati Lole-Taylor (NZF); Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (N); Tim Macindoe (N); Tracey Martin (NZF); Todd McClay (N); Mark Mitchell (N); Alfred Ngaro (N); Damien O’Connor (L); Simon O’Connor (N); Denis O’Rourke (NZF); Winston Peters (NZF); Richard Prosser (NZF); Ross Robertson (L); Eric Roy (N);Tony Ryall (N); Mike Sabin (N); Katrina Shanks (N); Su’a William Sio (L); Nick Smith (N); Barbara Stewart (NZF); Lindsay Tisch (N); Anne Tolley (N); Louise Upston (N); Andrew Williams (NZF); Michael Woodhouse (N); Jian Yang (N); Jonathan Young (N)

Hopefully the “yes” vote will be emboldened by this show of strength, and will hold firm in the face of what is sure to be a nasty campaign against the bill as it progresses. While much of this “no” campaign will don the robes of religious belief, I think it is well worth noting the range of christian opinion on the topic:

Labour MP David Clark, a Presbyterian minister, said there was an absence of advice for gay marriage in the Christian scriptures, particularly in Jesus’ words.

“I suspect he would say that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as really a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality.”

Mr Clark voted for the bill.

Bravo Dr Clark! Also in passing, credit where it’s due to John Key, who voted in favour, when it would have been very easy for him to have run to his base. His vote probably supplied political cover to some wavering Nats, and strengthened the “yes” vote overall.

165 comments on “Marriage equality – how they voted ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    30 August 2012 at 11:00 am

    Can anyone explain why Chris Finlayson voted against?  Out of all of the tories I would have thought he would be in favour of the proposal.

    • Carol 1.1
      30 August 2012 at 11:03 am

      On TV3 last night he said it was because marriage should be left to the churches, mosques etc.

      Shonkey reasoning. Hasn’t he heard about separation of church and state?

      • Te Reo Putake 1.1.1
        30 August 2012 at 11:13 am

        He apparently hasn’t heard of Registry Offices either!

        • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1.1
          30 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

          Simple “fear (and possibly self) loathing” perhaps from Chris Finlayson. Loads of right wing gays in the super city when I lived there. Many straight lefties supported them regardless during Homosexual law reform, hero and other social events.

      • TheContrarian 1.1.2
        30 August 2012 at 11:43 am

        “Hasn’t he heard about separation of church and state?”

        As far as I am aware NZ has no formal “separation of church and state” law. In fact, parliament opens with a prayer though the government’s official position is secular. Though if anyone can find any law on this I would be keen to read it.

        Leaving it to the churches and not having the state intervene, as Finlayson suggests, is a separation of church and state.

        • Carol 1.1.2.1
          30 August 2012 at 11:50 am

          Leaving it to the churches and not having the state intervene, as Finlayson suggests, is a separation of church and state.

          Only if all laws relating to marriage were removed from the statutes.

          It seems you are right, we don’t have separation of church and state, but should, IMO:

          http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/MaxWallace.html

          I think that prayer at the beginning of the sitting of the House should go.

          • fnjckg 1.1.2.1.1
            30 August 2012 at 3:42 pm

            regretably, i feel the prayer may as well go….along with every thing else…..as it appears a sound-bit h.(the word, of all words, they are not permitted by the Law to say)

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.2
            30 August 2012 at 7:10 pm

            I think that prayer at the beginning of the sitting of the House should go.

            By all means. Faith in neoliberalism is all we need to run the country now.

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.2.1.3
            31 August 2012 at 7:20 am

            It’s one of the problems with the common law background- England has an established religion, so many common law countries don’t have formal separation of church and state either.

        • Te Reo Putake 1.1.2.2
          30 August 2012 at 11:54 am

          The state already marries people TC, as I pointed out one comment above yours. The argument that marriage is a church only thing does not stack up at all and I have the photos to prove it!

          • TheContrarian 1.1.2.2.1
            30 August 2012 at 12:23 pm

            I never thought marriage was a church only thing. I think what Finlayson is suggesting is that the state should not be involved in church decisions as to who they want to marry. A separation of the state and the church.

            Personally I am not in anyway affected by legal gay marriage so I don’t care if they marry. Go for it. In fact, i look forward to being invited to a gay marriage one off these days. I am a hoot at weddings.

            • felix 1.1.2.2.1.1
              30 August 2012 at 12:27 pm

              “I think what Finlayson is suggesting is that the state should not be involved in church decisions as to who they want to marry. “

              Then he’s either a liar or he hasn’t read the bill.

              Churches are left entirely to their own devices to decide who they choose not to marry under the bill, exactly as they are now.

              The fact that this has been repeatedly discussed in the debates indicates to me that he is simply a liar. There’s no way he could have not known this.

            • Tracey 1.1.2.2.1.2
              31 August 2012 at 7:03 am

              I wonder if someone would ask Mr Finlayson if he thinks the head of the HRC is wrong in his interpretation of the law as it affects the churches?

        • NickS 1.1.2.3
          30 August 2012 at 8:56 pm

          The NZ state is none the less fairly secular, with religions effectively unable to dictate the law.

          As for this:

          Leaving it to the churches and not having the state intervene, as Finlayson suggests, is a separation of church and state.

          🙄

          Marriage in NZ has legal rights attached, so the state is very much involved already.

          Besides, those how art opposed to same-sex marriage don’t have to do the marriage ceremonies at all, so claiming teh state is intervening is rather stupid.

        • Tracey 1.1.2.4
          31 August 2012 at 7:02 am

          Except that there is legislation preventing it… which is secular and represents the state’s position, or have I misunderstoood your analysis of Mr Finlaysons’s point?

    • Tracey 1.2
      31 August 2012 at 7:00 am

      Perhaps he voted according to his electorate which is what he’s there to do? Rather than what he personally believes?

  2. Carol 2
    30 August 2012 at 11:04 am

    Disgraceful of John Key to undermine the goodwill and respectful nature of the debate, by giving license to it becoming nastier!

    • r0b 2.1
      30 August 2012 at 11:16 am

      I don’t see any advantage to him in doing that when he voted in favour? I think his comments on this were unwise, but not deliberately mischievous.

      • Carol 2.1.1
        30 August 2012 at 11:24 am

        Didn’t Key only pledge to vote in favour at the first reading?

        • r0b 2.1.1.1
          30 August 2012 at 11:39 am

          I believe so, all eyes will be on him for the future…

          • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1
            30 August 2012 at 12:53 pm

            Yeah, but he really can’t risk voting No now because he’ll alienate a lot of people in doing so. Of all of the possible voting actions he could take, voting yes then no would be the worst for his popularity.

    • fatty 2.2
      30 August 2012 at 12:59 pm

      “Disgraceful of John Key to undermine the goodwill and respectful nature of the debate, by giving license to it becoming nastier!”

      I agree, Key’s position on this issue is purely political. He was against civil unions, but he went ahead and supported the first reading. He knows that this will be a divisive issue and Labour will bear the brunt of the conservative backlash. If Key loses any votes due to him supporting this bill, then those votes will move to the conservatives and strengthen his (probable) future coalition.
      So what he is doing is using gay marriage as political leverage, he wants a drawn out and nasty moralistic debate, because he is in a win-win situation…Labour will probably lose votes or stay neutral because they see gay marriage as a human rights issue.
      National conservative voters are stuck and have nowhere to go, they can go Conservative, but this will only help Key – who is using gay marriage as a political football. The anti-gay marriage people have nowhere to turn…so Key is right that this will turn nasty. A lot of money and propaganda will be thrown at this until it becomes law. This will be the anti-smacking thing all over again, National are in a perfect position to milk this and watch Labour squirm.
      The pokies for convention centre is another example of a deal that was done in consideration of the political landscape (alongside getting a convention centre of course). If Key pushes for anything that is morally questionable, he is likely to push his voters onto the Conservatives, and this strengthens his position at the next election. We can expect to see Key agitate moral issues right up until the election, they also provide a distraction for cutbacks and poverty issues. Key will support gay marriage right though because of this reason, but he will not promote it with any degree of conviction…it is important for Key that it remains in the headlines and gets passed without him being seen as a strong backer of marriage equality.
      Key is a greasy schmuck who keeps getting these political opportunities handed to him on a plate…I dunno how he does it

      • Carol 2.2.1
        30 August 2012 at 1:10 pm

        Yes, I’m pretty sure Key knew exactly what he was doing in predicting the debate will get nasty.

        Apart from anything else, watching the reading live last night, this Labour MP led bill resulted in a bit of cross-party warm-and-fuzzies, which reflects well on the opposition. I’m sure Key won’t want that to be sustained for any length of time.

      • Tom Gould 2.2.2
        30 August 2012 at 3:07 pm

        Fatty, let me tell you “how he does it”. He does not have his own caucus members or his own party activists attack the living shit out him on blogs and facebook. They shut up. Unlike the left, who freely slam Shearer at every opportunity, fair or unfair. That’s how he “does it”.

        • fatty 2.2.2.1
          30 August 2012 at 3:21 pm

          How does activists (do you mean possible voters?) attacking the direction and leadership of Labour provide these opportunities for Key? It is Labour’s inability to control, or even influence, the public debate on these issues.
          Its not Labour’s supporters/activists, its because the Labour Party are so ineffective at using the media. Family First twisted the smacking debate by framing it as a ‘freedom’ issue, the Greens and Labour were unable to change this narrative. Labour must be careful that Family First do not get a foot in on this issue, and they must ensure that Key’s fingerprints/image are all over this bill.
          I’m glad this bill is going through, but it is a perfect political opportunity for National. Labour need to be organised, work as a team, have good leadership and have a very thorough plan for this not to cost them. Looking at Labour’s effort over the course of this year, it does not look good.

        • Murray Olsen 2.2.2.2
          30 August 2012 at 5:17 pm

          I didn’t realise you had to be a Labour activist to post in here, Tom. I personally vote Mana, would consider Greens, and will slam Shearer every time I see him moving the debate to the right.

          • fnjckg 2.2.2.2.1
            30 August 2012 at 8:57 pm

            good man (imo)

          • Vicky32 2.2.2.2.2
            31 August 2012 at 4:09 pm

            and will slam Shearer every time I see him moving the debate to the right

            Except that whether or not Shearer does that, is very much open to debate!
            Shearer the righty seems to be green gospel, which is at best, cheeky of them, given that some of the the greens are on the economic right. Socially, they consider themselves left – but I am with Damien O’Connor here – the ‘first world problem’ of gay marriage is simply a self indulgent distraction…

            • NickS 2.2.2.2.2.1
              31 August 2012 at 4:18 pm

              🙄

              Cos we so can’t totes work on multiple issues at the same time…

              Nor are teh homos deserving of rights, right?

              • Vicky32 …
                31 August 2012 at 5:41 pm

                Correct me if I am wrong, but you are ‘totes’ one of those men who tends to get rather abusive when disagreed with, right? That being so, I so don’t want to discuss this with you.. but er, no, the general public has the attention span of a butterfly. It’s gay rights, alcohol or child poverty.
                Teh homos can do whatever rocks their world, but I for one, wish they’d do it a wee bit more quietly. They have all the rights they could realistically want, and if they weren’t so mind-bendingly self-absorbed, would shut the heck up about their ‘rights’ (of which they have no lack) whilever others are in greater need.
                But it’s been my experience that teh gays (your term, not mine) and I can’t think of a single exception, are all desperately in need of attention. Step back, for even five minutes, in favour of children in poverty, or people with disabilities? “Not a chance! It’s all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
                Sums it up, really. 🙁

                • Murray Olsen …
                  31 August 2012 at 6:57 pm

                  I know Vicky. I wish they’d do it more quietly too. I used to live next door to a gay couple and the amount of noise they made while engaging in their depraved acts made it hard to hear Coronation St. Whenever I had sex with my wife (in the missionary position), we would stop and have a cold shower if either of us began breathing too heavily. Why couldn’t they have shown the same consideration?

                  • Vicky32 …
                    31 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

                    Why couldn’t they have shown the same consideration?

                    Oh wow, you think you’re hilarious! Plonker….
                    If that’s an example of homosexual wit, just don’t consider giving up your day job (merchant banker maybe?) and going into comedy…

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      31 August 2012 at 7:19 pm

                      Your idea of religion has little space for love and much space for hatred. Did you lose a boyfriend to someone who dressed more stylishly and knew about colour matching?

                • NickS …
                  31 August 2012 at 7:26 pm

                  🙄

                  I only grump at failures to notice reality.

                  And those that try and make up excuses to ignore the rights of others.

                  Like what you’re doing here, namely ignoring the capacity of people and groups to be able to work on multiple issues at once, plus proclaiming homosexuals have plenty of rights, which ignores the fact they don’t have completely the same rights under law as heterosexuals.

                  Hell, the only reason this issue draws so much flak is because there’s a subset of the population who are bigoted towards homosexuals and at best think they’re lesser human beings, and do not deserve complete legal equality. Otherwise this would have been sorted at the same time the Homosexual Reform Law went through back in the 1980’s…

                  And lastly, just because someone’s presently focusing on homosexual rights issues, does not mean they’re ignoring any of the other issues 🙄

      • Tracey 2.2.3
        31 August 2012 at 7:06 am

        And it will be a long drawn out nasty distraction for the NACT’s blunders and drive of our country toward nothingness for all.

  3. Roy 3
    30 August 2012 at 11:23 am

    I am very disappointed in, but not surprised by, the vote of ‘my’ MP, John Hayes. I say ‘my’ MP because I didn’t vote for him. Silly old fossil.

  4. kiwi_prometheus 4
    30 August 2012 at 11:31 am

    The bible is very clear on [homosexuality], just like it is very clear on slavery.

    Liberal Christians are stuck with the unenviable task of trying to rationalise their belief with Humanist philosophy.

    [Minor edit, please keep it respectful. r0b]

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.1
      30 August 2012 at 12:04 pm

      It’s also very clear on the merits of mixing wool with linen (“thou shalt not…”) and on what to do with fig trees (“and Jesus cursed the tree, and it never bore fruit again”).

      • Carol 4.1.1
        30 August 2012 at 12:15 pm

        I’m not a follower of the Bible, so don’t really care what it says on homosexuality.

        But, in the interest of historical/textual accuracy, I have an idea that the Bible is pretty critical of usury, and has far more references to its evils than homosexuality.

        I also have heard that Jesus got pretty angry at money lenders, and haven’t heard of him acting in any similar way against homosexuality.

        • Dr Terry 4.1.1.1
          30 August 2012 at 2:16 pm

          Jesus was not a crafty strategist like Key. Actually, he taught “unconditional love” (as opposed to this Nat Government) and if that kind of teaching makes me a “liberal humanist” then I have no problem with that. Labelling is childish. Any teaching that opposes same sex relationships comes not from Jesus; something might be found within the Hebrew Scriptures, or in the writings of St Paul, who exposes personal hang-ups many times. Some scholars suggest that Jesus himself might have been gay, and if he was, so what? (Please note that I am a retired Anglican priest).

          • fnjckg 4.1.1.1.1
            30 August 2012 at 3:46 pm

            retirement wise

          • Tracey 4.1.1.1.2
            31 August 2012 at 7:08 am

            +1

          • Vicky32 4.1.1.1.3
            31 August 2012 at 5:53 pm

            Some scholars suggest that Jesus himself might have been gay, and if he was, so what? (Please note that I am a retired Anglican priest).

            That’s an appalling suggestion! That you were an Anglican priest, shows – that’s why I lean from Anglicanism towards Catholicism…
            Those who pit Paul against Jesus make me laugh (albeit somewhat bitterly).
            Paul was all about preaching Jesus, and him only! (He says as much). True, he said nothing about homosexuality – probably because it wasn’t relevant – it never came up! (There were hardly going to be hundreds of self-important gay activists demanding their rights around, were there? Aside from anything else, there was a little matter of a military occupation to worry about at the time…)
            However, ‘unconditional love’ isn’t just pink fluffy clouds and – er, licence! It can be quite stern and demanding.

            • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.3.1
              31 August 2012 at 7:03 pm

              Well the thing about Paul of course is that he never actually met Jesus, or heard his messages first hand. Further to that his evangelism was away from Jerusalem, and his church did develop differently to that in Judea. It would be interesting to know how things might have turned out if the church in Judea had won out against the one in Greece and Rome.

            • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.1.3.2
              31 August 2012 at 7:05 pm

              I also find it apalling that Anglican priests think an adult male can have sex with another adult male. The Catholic Church seems to have a different view on this.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2
          30 August 2012 at 6:05 pm

          I have an idea that the Bible is pretty critical of usury,

          Yep and yet the supposed Christians engage in it in every way that they can.

      • Vicky32 4.1.2
        31 August 2012 at 5:31 pm

        and on what to do with fig trees (“and Jesus cursed the tree, and it never bore fruit again”).

        Er, it’s an acted parable! Not advice… 
        Old Testament – the laws you quote are ceremonial, ritualistic and therefore irrelevant.
        Life would be a lot simpler if angry atheists would learn the fundamental differrence between the Old Testament and the New…
        (Hint – it’s in the name! 😀 )

    • Uturn 4.2
      30 August 2012 at 12:59 pm

      In 1 Corinthians Ch13, The Bible is very clear on love that endures under all provocation, defining it as being outside of rhetoric and knowledge and being that which remains after all else is gone. No humanist philosophy required. 1 John Ch4, verse 20 spells it out. If you do not love people, who are created in god’s image and can be seen with the eye, then you cannot say you love a god who cannot be seen.

      Some Christians may then be stuck with the unenviable task of trying to edit out inconvenient instructions from their religious text, and redefine the biblical definition of love, to cover whatever personal fears they have. But this is not necessary, because as it stands, the amendment bill allows churches to uphold their beliefs as they see fit.

      • Jebus 4.2.1
        30 August 2012 at 2:28 pm

        I’m sure you consulted the Greek text and not some lousy Evangelical translation like the NIV. It’s interesting how in older English translations (like the KJV), the references to homosexuality are absent. The translation is already an interpretation. “Traduttore, tradittore” (Translator, traitor)

        • Uturn 4.2.1.1
          30 August 2012 at 2:51 pm

          If any translation is an act of treason, that is good news. The most humble Christians will be discarding their bibles and finding god within themselves or wherever he resides.

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1
            30 August 2012 at 3:57 pm

            …for the Kingdom of God is within you.

          • Bored 4.2.1.1.2
            30 August 2012 at 3:58 pm

            Tyndale got burnt for heresy for translating the Bible into the vernacular (for which we can be eternally grateful because without him it is unlikely Shakespeare would have been able to write the words and phrases coined by Tyndale). In doing so he (amongst others) opened a can of worms because once available to readers the word was whatever the individual thought….some take it literally…others metaphorically, myself I quote it for fun and don’t believe a word. One thing however, even if we discarded the bibles our societal memory and cultural subconscious would retain its resonance.

      • fnjckg 4.2.2
        30 August 2012 at 3:49 pm

        amen sister
        it is the in not the er

    • Pascal's bookie 4.3
      30 August 2012 at 1:03 pm

      Liberal Christians are stuck with the unenviable task of trying to rationalise their belief with Humanist philosophy.

      Not sure what you mean by this. The liberal Chritsians I know about don’t find this to be a problem at all. They are not biblical literalists, nor are they humanists. They are not caught anywhere near the horns of this dilemma.

      • fnjckg 4.3.1
        30 August 2012 at 3:52 pm

        context. excellent

        Theology: Or how has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong.

        any way, i luv this feast.

    • William Joyce 4.4
      30 August 2012 at 2:40 pm

      Are you being tongue-in-cheek kiwi_prometheus?
      You have a number of problems with your statement.
      1. Jesus said nothing about slavery. Paul encouraged Philemon to return to his owners. The OT accepts (as does the NT) that slavery is such a fundamental part of the social, economic (and therefore political) structure that it was not challenged.
      If you accept the scriptures as literal (as you seem to with homosexuality) then there is an implied consent in the scriptures to slavery.
      Something most Christians would not support today. Which means that the door to a non-literal interpretation of scripture is already, if perhaps unconsciously, opened by millions upon millions of modern day Christians who do not regard slavery as normative.
      So what else is not normative and is open to re-evaluation in our modern times.
      Consider…

      Suffer not a woman to teach or to have authority over the man (Your boss better not be a woman)
      Women should be silent in church.
      Women should have their heads covered (if they don’t then shave their heads like WW2 collaborators)
      People who commit witchcraft & divination should be stoned – (even those who read their horoscope).
      People who commit adultery should be put to death. (that’ll thin out the herd)
      All natural disasters are a sign of God’s judgement upon a people.
      War is an acceptable way to do God’s will.
      War on God’s behalf of God can involve killing an entire people group (genocide), combatants & civilians plus their cattle, pets, crops.
      It is okay to have many wives (Why would you want to?)
      Have no contact with a woman who is menstruating (How will you know, ask them?)
      People who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (There goes the neighbour who mows his lawns on a Sunday – or should that be Saturday)
      Good thing the All Black play with a synthetic ball because touching pig skin will make them unclean.

      If you think any of these is unacceptable today then I suggest that you also are a “Liberal Christian”

      2. The bible “may” be clear on homosexuality. Calling it an abomination, such a strong word. But so is eating shellfish, having false weights and measures, not paying your tithes, breaking a contract, oppressing the poor, lying, and usury. (Imagine if we went after the usurious money lenders like we do homosexuals then National would not be able to blame the GFC for their failure!)

      • RedLogix 4.4.1
        30 August 2012 at 3:54 pm

        Which all goes to show just how much trouble you always get into when you start treating religion literally.

      • Lanthanide 4.4.2
        30 August 2012 at 5:23 pm

        “Have no contact with a woman who is menstruating (How will you know, ask them?)”

        Some people with unusually heightened senses of smell will know it when they walk into the room.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.4.3
        30 August 2012 at 6:19 pm

        2. The bible “may” be clear on homosexuality.

        Apparently it isn’t.

        • William Joyce 4.4.3.1
          30 August 2012 at 9:34 pm

          Hence the ” “. I was just echoing k_p’s statment.
          By he time I finished writing the first bit I needed a coffee. Thanks for the link. Literalists often think that the bible is written by god and is a text book for life and that its meaning is clear.
          They want to have certainty about life and they think simplistic understandings, of what are complex interpretations, make them secure.
          If god wrote it as a text book for life then he didn’t do a very good job. So many things are unclear, culturally and epoch specific, contradictory and it has left people to make inferences from scant material in order to derive some sort of theology.

      • Vicky32 4.4.4
        31 August 2012 at 6:27 pm

        It would take a month to go into what’s wrong with this post, and I would catch hell if I pointed it out… so I am not going to. However, I will say – it’s time you men got some new material! 🙂
        I have discovered – after years of thinking naively, that if I pointed out where someone’s interpretation was wrong, they’d be interested, and perhaps even say “Oh, thanks for pointing that out”. Now I know that youse guys are far more interested in having a go!

        (as does the NT) that slavery is such a fundamental part of the social, economic (and therefore political) structure that it was not challenged.

        Your first error. It was a matter of doing what was possible at the time, and not fighting a battle that could never be won. When the time was right, Christians fought slavery and won (except in the USA).

        If you accept the scriptures as literal (as you seem to with homosexuality) then there is an implied consent in the scriptures to slavery.

        Bollices.
         
         
         
          (if they don’t then shave their heads like WW2 collaborators)
        More utter bollocks.

        People who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (There goes the neighbour who mows his lawns on a Sunday – or should that be Saturday)

        Er, ever heard of the New Testament?

        Good thing the All Black play with a synthetic ball because touching pig skin will make them unclean.

        Jewish, not Christian… Oh noes, that pesky New Testament comes up here, again…

         
         

        Here’s where I give up – you know the answers, you just don’t want to.

         

         

        • Pascal's bookie 4.4.4.1
          31 August 2012 at 6:59 pm

          In between all the defensiveness you raise some interesting points Vicky.

          If I read you right about slavery, you are saying the the authors of the new testament who wrote that slaves should obey their masters and so on, were simply speaking in terms of what could be achieved at the time, rather than laying down eternal principles.

          If that is true, then this could also apply to what they said about homosexuality.

          And just as a minority of people advocated against slavery in more recent times, a minority of christians argue today against discrimination against GLBT people.

          • Vicky32 4.4.4.1.1
            31 August 2012 at 7:23 pm

            If that is true, then this could also apply to what they said about homosexuality.

            I really don’t think so, as they’re very different things.
            Slavery is a hideous injustice.
            ‘Discrimination’ against LGBT people is a problem on a par with teasing ginger kids, it’s that trivial.
            The desperate sucking need for love, attention and validation shown by gay people makes me sad for them. All children are like that, 99% grow out of it.
            Should any paraphilia be able to claim that anyone who sniggers or who goes -euuww’ is committing discriniation? (That question brought to you by proxy –  in the context of a prog on BBW websites I suffered through whilst waiting for Fringe.
            A man running a BBW * website made exactly that point, and compared the sniggers he gets to the evil of homophobia.
            *BBW – websites for Big Beautiful 600lb women who jiggle their fat and eat buckets of fried chicken. Apparently, some men get off on this and fund these women.

            • Pascal's bookie 4.4.4.1.1.1
              31 August 2012 at 7:29 pm

              I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure a major theme of the new testament (particulalry the gospels, and the teachings of the nazarene) is that all of us are deserving of love, and that sniggering at one another and so forth is something we should try and avoid; that it is something none of us deserve precisely because to do so is to snigger at a child of Christ.

              I also seem to recall teachings that ‘childlike’, in the gospel,s is not a put down.That the simplicity and naievety of a child-like love, free of prejudice, is something we should emulate.

              • fnjckg …
                31 August 2012 at 9:04 pm

                wot amazes me is the impact that nazarene had on subsequent to present history.
                counterexample?

                and

                emperors have converted before

            • NickS 4.4.4.1.1.2
              31 August 2012 at 7:35 pm

              ‘Discrimination’ against LGBT people is a problem on a par with teasing ginger kids, it’s that trivial.

              By the Elder Things, there’s oh so many things wrong with this attitude I can’t even begin to articulate the wrongness…

              Then there’s the whole paternalistic attitude to LGBT people.

              And treating it as though it were just a another kink, which ironically, taking such an argument and running with it, leads unto the logical conclusion that heterosexuality is just another kink. Which means it’s perfectly legitimate to ask “why should heterosexuals have any more rights thank [insert kink here]?”.

              /trololololol

            • Draco T Bastard 4.4.4.1.1.3
              1 September 2012 at 1:16 am

              ‘Discrimination’ against LGBT people is a problem on a par with teasing ginger kids, it’s that trivial.

              Both are bullying, both cause serious psychological damage and are thus non trivial.

              The desperate sucking need for love, attention and validation shown by gay people makes me sad for them. All children are like that, 99% grow out of it.

              Could you be any more disparaging of the fight that LGBT people have had just to be treated like human beings?

              Slavery is a hideous injustice.

              So is any type of discrimination.

        • Murray Olsen 4.4.4.2
          31 August 2012 at 7:11 pm

          Brazil, a strongly Catholic country, had slavery for at least 20 years after emancipation in the secular/protestant US of A. They justified it because a Papal edict had stated that Africans didn’t have souls. I suppose when the time was right, God gave them souls. Not a very omnipotent God at all, by the looks of it.

          • Vicky32 4.4.4.2.1
            31 August 2012 at 7:25 pm

            They justified it because a Papal edict had stated that Africans didn’t have souls.

            Some proof would be nice! 🙂 I beg leave to doubt such an asinine comment motivated solely by hate.

            • Carol 4.4.4.2.1.1
              31 August 2012 at 8:03 pm

              Vicky, I find this hard to understand how you can say this, after reading a stream of your comments venting complete hatred of us LGBT people. Are you even aware of the contradictions in your successive expressions of venom?

              You say we never have any time to talk about anything other than ourselves – not poverty etc…. really? Have you seen any of my comments on this blog, consistently talking about such things?

              You say discrimination against LGBT people is on a par with that against redheads – but the research shows otherwise. (While demonstrating an extreme degree of prejudice against LGBT people as you say it.)

              Then you complain against hatred of Christianity. Can you show me any research that shows anywhere near the discrimination, hatred and resulting debilitating impacts against Christianity as there is against LGBT people?

              • Vicky32 …
                31 August 2012 at 9:38 pm

                Vicky, I find this hard to understand how you can say this, after reading a stream of your comments venting complete hatred of us LGBT people

                Hatred and venom? Oh my dear woman, don’t be such a drama queen. 😀  I am sure you’d love it to be hatred and fear, that would enable you to feel all lovely and tingly and important – and so ‘it’s all about me’…
                I don’t hate LGBT people. I don’t fear them either. I just wish they’d realise that they are not the be-all and end-all of everything. You’re actually one of the few gays who seems to give a monkey’s about poverty issues (perhaps because they’re personal for you.) Lanth, who is, I gather, pretty well off, is a madly oscillating mostly Rand-lite blue-green, and there are other gays here who rush like moths to a flame to anything that they can interpret as the teensiest bit critical of Their Preciousnesses… 😀 but who are otherwise not terribly engaged here,
                “First world problems” is the term someone used on another site, and that’s what bothers me about the gay marriage issue. I am far from being the only one to say here that there are issues far more pressing, urgent and yes, vital than whether two gay people can have a pretend wedding ceremony and call each other Mr and Mr and husband and husband, instead of having a civil union. On another site, I did ask a number of gay men why they were so desperate to marry when a civil union not only gave them all the same rights, but was also considered perfectly fine by many straight couples! None, not one of them, actually had an answer, but I had my answer on the letters page  of the discarded Herald I picked up today. A letter talked  about adoption, and the way it erases the birth parents… and by the way, gay adoption is the ultimate aim of those who want gay marriage – a protest pictured on page 3 confirmed it. 
                If it’s really all about adoption, then it is incumbent upon gay men to be honest about that – and despite the comments of Nikki Kaye and others in the Herald, adoption is not going to be as easy a sell…
                I am firmly against stranger adoption and the erasure of the birth parents,  full stop. A child has the right to know her family heritage. If gays want a pretend marriage, they won’t balk at pretend parenthood – and any child they adopt will have a hard time even knowing she’s adopted! (Although once she starts school, she’ll work it out in a minute – and then what?)
                 

                • fatty …
                  31 August 2012 at 10:46 pm

                  Did you hold the same position when equal rights for Maori and women were being brought in too?…or is this just a gay thing?

                  • Vicky32 …
                    31 August 2012 at 11:12 pm

                    you hold the same position

                    Idiot… 😀
                    How old do you think I am?
                    For the 10 millionth time, I don’t hate gays, I don’t care if they get married or not (although it will never be real marriage, just a pretence) but what I do object to is, is all the time, effort and energy being wasted on this, and the beautiful distraction it gives Key and NACT from being held to account for what they are doing or not doing…
                    Oh, and do try attacking someone else, cos it’s getting really old. I am not the only one saying the same thing! (Although I can see where it suits you to think so.)

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2012 at 11:19 pm

                      Idiot… 🙂

                      seriously. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Do you put in the smiley because you feel bad about calling someone an idiot? Or do you think it simply makes the word in this context less stupid?

                    • rosy …
                      1 September 2012 at 12:44 am

                      Din’t exactly answer Fatty’s question though Vicky.

                      Did you hold the same position when equal rights for Maori and women were being brought in too?…or is this just a gay thing?

                      But if you’d prefer not to answer, just say so rather than deflect. I didn’t see Fatty mention ‘hate’ – it is a question to do with the fight for equal rights for various groups.

                      I do actually agree with the distraction point you’re making, but from where I stand if leftists who say they don’t care either way about gay marriage just ignored the whole thing it would be out of the public consciousness a whole lot faster, and those members of the general public with one-track minds can get back to other issues. For those who don’t drop those issues when a right issue comes up then it’s just bau.

            • Alice 4.4.4.2.1.2
              31 August 2012 at 8:18 pm

              Miss Vicky?

              • Vicky32 …
                31 August 2012 at 11:21 pm

                Please, be patient! I not long ago got home from work, and I have been faffing about – soon, I promise! 😀
                 

          • RedLogix 4.4.4.2.2
            31 August 2012 at 7:49 pm

            Like most things to do with religion … the actual story is more complex than some dumbed-down sound-bite:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

            • Murray Olsen 4.4.4.2.2.1
              31 August 2012 at 8:55 pm

              Sorry about the dumbed down sound bite. Next time I’ll give a wiki reference.
              Or maybe not, since I was making a side point about the church and slavery, on the issue of whether gays, redheads or anyone else should have human rights taken away from them. Because if we believe in human rights and one group doesn’t have all of them under our law, those rights are being taken away.
              I would also note that Paul was possibly the first Christian to cart a closet around with him on his travels, but I can’t be bothered giving a reference for that either.
              Short story: I’m not interested in Vicky’s Vatican approved homophobia and I’m not here to write a complicated story. I’m here because I want a better world for those who come after me and if we can make a partial step towards that without waiting for the revolution, I can handle that.

              • Vicky32 …
                31 August 2012 at 9:47 pm

                I’m not interested in Vicky’s Vatican approved homophobia

                For heaven’s sake, stop being so juvenile!
                You were caught out – I hope you followed the link, and read it... 
                Points: 1. I am not ‘Vatican approved’, as I am not yet a Catholic. You’ll note (or would do if you did more than just skim my posts) that I am ‘leaning towards’ it. Not there yet.
                2. Nor am I homophobic. There may be such a word, but it has no meaning. So-called ‘homophobes’ are not scared of gay people. Bored, fed up, annoyed – or even revolted, yes, scared – no.
                3. You’re on a hiding to nothing with all the testerical religion bashing. I was brought up by an atheist and an agnostic, and I felt pretty much the same way then.

                • Murray Olsen …
                  31 August 2012 at 9:55 pm

                  1. I’ve read a lot about slavery in Brazil, most of it in the original Portuguese. I wasn’t caught out at all, despite your claim.
                  2. You revolt me, but I wouldn’t deny you the right to marriage. I’d just feel sorry for your husband.
                  3. I’ll bash your sort of religion as long as I live. It’s no surprise you’re drawn towards an interpretation that confirms your petty prejudices.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    31 August 2012 at 10:13 pm

                      I wouldn’t deny you the right to marriage. I’d just feel sorry for your husband.

                    Been there, done that. He died 8 months ago.
                    Don’t feel sorry for him – I didn’t. He was an abusive alkie.
                    Bash away, see if I care! If you’re so mad keen to bash religion, make that your life’s work, then I am even sorrier for you than I was before – you really need to find something more useful and fulfilling to do.
                    BTW, caught out you were, as your assertion  seems to be pure fiction.
                     

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      31 August 2012 at 10:44 pm

                      You might like to read up a bit on the history of the Jesuit missions in Brazil before you call it fiction. Or maybe just pray for divine guidance, although considering some of what you post, the divine guidance you receive is a little suspect.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 August 2012 at 10:46 pm

                      Nothing is out of bounds when you are doing God’s work.

            • Vicky32 4.4.4.2.2.2
              31 August 2012 at 9:42 pm

              Like most things to do with religion … the actual story is more complex than some dumbed-down sound-bite:

              Thank you RedLogix, I’ve just read that… Excellent link!

        • rosy 4.4.4.3
          31 August 2012 at 8:04 pm

          There goes the neighbour who mows his lawns on a Sunday

          On that point, near where I live it is illegal to mow the lawn on Sunday 😉

    • Tracey 4.5
      31 August 2012 at 7:07 am

      which Bible? Can you name the version you are referring to? You know that your “God” didnt write the Bible, don’t you? It was written variously at different times by human men?

    • millsy 4.6
      31 August 2012 at 11:37 pm

      So you want homosexuality recriminalised then?

      Get the hell out of this country bedrooms douchebag — and take your fairy story with you. No wonder you guys want to burn Harry Potter books, you dont like the competition.

      Abracadabara, Adam, Eve, Earth, Eden, wave my magic wand,

  5. Roy 5
    30 August 2012 at 12:13 pm

    It is also very clear on not eating oysters, on having the whole town stone your son to death if he answers back, and about getting a wife by raping a virgin. This is the same book that says camels are not artiodactyls, that bats are birds, and that hares are ruminants.

  6. ak 6
    30 August 2012 at 12:45 pm

    “Christians” hatemongering against love and commitment. Nuff said.

  7. fnjckg 7
    30 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Wow!
    any way, i was cycle ing along this morning to serve, (there is great starvation and suffering in New Zealand Aotearoa) and i was thinking of DTB of all ‘people’ and i thought, i love DTB and i have not even met them, but i know they care (and many others)

    Bless ed are the peacemakers

    ya know, personal/political and all that, one can do a lot worse than meditate on the Word
    (but that does take understanding)(much, much more; little, even that will be taken away)

    brothers,sisters
    sisters,brothers

  8. lenore 8
    30 August 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Thanks for this. wow that is interesting about Katrina Shanks as I know plenty of blue/green voters in Ohariu who would support the billl but are nat party voters . We wrote to Peter Dunne so knew he was going to vote yes to this reading so we now need to keep talking to him!. I also might start annoying Katrina Shanks now about this

  9. xtasy 9
    30 August 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Fuck “marriage equality”, you people who go on about it, you neglect “equality” of income, equality to get people out of poverty, this is a middle class and selected circle debate and fight, that does NOTHING to improve matters for the people that need it most, the poor, low paid and disadvantaged in Aoteoaroa NZ. Thus you should all feel ashamed to indulge in “lifestyle issues”, as that is exactly what this is. What about the miners in South Africa shot recently, what about miners all over the world, in South America? Oh, no, that is not important, we want “gay rights”, that is more important, right?

    Now listen, I am all for your rights, but you are losing focus and priorities, and you have totally LOST MY solidarity, I am against your crap privileges. Get down into the dirt and fight for real justice, thank you, you are not part of the REAL LEFT!

    • fnjckg 9.1
      31 August 2012 at 10:53 am

      Yes, and
      really?

    • Matthew Whitehead 9.2
      31 August 2012 at 5:58 pm

      As someone who may benefit from the passage of this Bill into law… it’s certainly not the most important issue out there, or even at the top of my list of queer rights issues we need to advance. But once it was drawn, there was no reason NOT to support it- the bill still gets debated even if we give up on it, so we might as well use that time well.

      However, there’s nothing to say we can’t get this win and move on to get some more equality for the average worker, or for women, or for people here on working visas, and everyone else who’s also on our list of solidarity and rationality. I will continue to push on behalf of the rights of the homeless, the working poor, beneficiaries, (who deserve a raise) and everyone who doesn’t get a fair shake in New Zealand society.

      I hope you will too, regardless, or better yet, inclusive, of who you vote for.

      • Colonial Viper 9.2.1
        31 August 2012 at 8:29 pm

        Its lucky then that this Bill turns up as just one more issue in Labour’s current push to seek fairness and equality across many critical issues for all NZers. As such the Bill is a fitting compliment to the robust and much wider agenda for the Left that Labour is leading.

        Not.

    • Vicky32 9.3
      31 August 2012 at 6:32 pm

      I am against your crap privileges. Get down into the dirt and fight for real justice

      Seconded, thirded, fourthed and fifthed! 🙂

  10. So Unfair 10
    31 August 2012 at 2:10 am

    It’s all very well giving equal rights to heterosexual, homosexual and multi gender people, but I want to marry my Dog.

    We get on so well. So compatible.

    Why won’t the State, and the Churches let me marry man’s best friend? Who do they think they are.

    Blatant discrimination. A denial of my rights to bond with my dear Dog. I suppose you think dogs have no feelings.

    [a dog can’t consent. That’s why we don’t allow them to make contracts and why sexual connection with an animal is illegal. But, legalities aside, you’re equating being gay with being a dog – do you honestly think your bigotry doesn’t turn off more people than it speak to? Eddie]

    • So Unfair 10.1
      31 August 2012 at 8:50 am

      Eddie

      Is it bigotry to say that humans can have various relationships with beings?

      Is it bigotry to say that a man and a woman can have a monogamous relationship with each other?

      Is it bigotry to say that two men are entitled to have a gay relationship with each other?

      Clearly, a sexual relation with a dog is illegal, and the great majority of dog owners would not even think of engaging in that. But does that mean a human can have no relationship with a dog?

      All of these relationships have different understandings and different nuances. Whether we like it or not. Calling them all “marriage” does not alter the differences between the various possible relationships. Does it?

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        31 August 2012 at 2:37 pm

        Do you believe what you write?

      • NickS 10.1.2
        31 August 2012 at 4:22 pm

        Yes, because dogs are so totes capable of consenting 🙄

        • felix 10.1.2.1
          1 September 2012 at 1:45 pm

          Dogs are capable of consenting. It’s just that they generally don’t.

          I’m going to marry a wardrobe.

      • Matthew Whitehead 10.1.3
        31 August 2012 at 6:11 pm

        I take care of a cat, and I’d never compare that to raising a child. I don’t care what you do with your dog, that’s worlds away from being comparable to queer marriage and you are a troll for even mentioning it.

      • Murray Olsen 10.1.4
        31 August 2012 at 9:00 pm

        So Unfair: Go and have sex with your dog if you like. Just don’t expect me to worry about it when you get arrested. I prefer humans who have romantic relationships with other humans.

  11. Carol 11
    31 August 2012 at 7:11 am

    Fuck “marriage equality”, you people who go on about it, you neglect “equality” of income, equality to get people out of poverty, this is a middle class and selected circle debate and fight, that does NOTHING to improve matters for the people that need it most, the poor, low paid and disadvantaged in Aoteoaroa NZ.

    And I call BS on that!

    Most of us have spent more time on poverty and income inequalities.

    And working class and unemployed LGBT people?…. many who still feel it’s better to stay in the closet because it may impact on their future employment prospects.

    • xtasy 11.1
      1 September 2012 at 12:45 am

      “many who still feel it’s better to stay in the closet because it may impact on their future employment prospects.”

      Well, is Wall’s member’s bill for equal rights to marriage for gay and lesbian people going to change the redneck views that are still so widespread?

      I doubt it. If a small scale employer, like most NZ employers are, has a work “team” with redneck and intolerant views, is she or he going to hire a person known for their sexual orientation being non-hetero?

      They may find other “reasons” or excuses for not hiring a gay or lesbian person that they may “feel” does “not fit into the team”, so they will bend the law (Human Rights Act) and break it, and they sadly will get away with it, same as is happening for other discrimination on a daily basis. That is because it will be hard to prove.

      I think it is a bit overly naive and idealistic, to think that the law change will make much difference at all in this respect.

      Many NZ employers will only employ born and bred NZ workers, some will not hire Maori or Polynesian staff members, some will not hire immigrants, some will not hire Chinese, Indians or whatsoever persons, same as some migrant employers will only try to employ people of their own background.

      It happens daily, and a mere law change will NOT simply do away with discrimination, I am afraid.

  12. Tracey 12
    31 August 2012 at 7:14 am

    xtasy, attack the ballot system then, because that is how this came to the surface.

    • Vicky32 12.1
      31 August 2012 at 6:42 pm

      attack the ballot system then, because that is how this came to the surface.

      Which I find very interesting!
      It reminds me that years ago, many many of Muriel (spit) Newman’s private members bills came up – so many of them that it made me wonder…
      Now, we have all the controversial, oh so distracting social legislation…
      After all, why worry about massive unemployment, or children with rheumatic fever or Kim Dotcom, or drug testing beneficiaries, when teh gays can’t play at marriage, but have to have a civil union? Oh, the humanity!
      Think what gay marriage could do for the economy? Wow, wedding planners are gonna clean up… Maybe some of those pink dollars will trickle down, and a hospital cleaner may get   an extra 10c an hour – and wouldn’t that be nice?
      /sarc/

    • xtasy 12.2
      31 August 2012 at 8:36 pm

      I do not attack the ballot system, but I should perhaps attack the MP for Manurewa, Louisa Wall, from the Labour Party, for not choosing and drawing up a bill that addresses more pressing issues.

      Also have I written to certain Labour and Green MPs about a few issues, and one was also about the fact, that Work and Income have been using “biased” designated doctors for conducting medical examinations (as part of “reviews”) on sickness and invalid beneficiaries, for years.

      I raised the fact that the Ministry of Social Development have since 2008 been “training” these supposedly “indendent” “designated doctors” under the Principal Health Advisor, Dr David Bratt, a common GP, from Wellington. He is himself staunchly “pro workability” and has compared benefit dependence to “drug dependence”. So when a government Ministry starts “training” doctors they use by such a clearly biased senior staff member, then this raises serious issues with natural justice.

      There have been some appalling decisions by such “designated doctors”, which forced clients and applicants for sickness and invalid’s benefits to go to Medical Appeal Board hearings, which though have also been made up of panels with designated doctors on them, supposedly “independently” hearing appeal cases.

      This process was gaining momentum with the Future Focus policies introduced under this government.

      I raised these matters, and NONE of the MPs contacted showed much interest in digging into this further. Other issues were also not treated with much attention, so one must fairly ask, what are the bloody PRIORITIES of MPs of certain parties?

      They pay a lot of lip-service about fairness, all getting a fair go and about unacceptable treatments and poverty, but where is their action, I ask.

      Now comes someone with equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, all make this a top issue that needs resolving!

      So I see especially Labour MPs as being utter hypocrites, wishy washy, unintegre, privileged politicos, who rather focus on side show issues than what really matters. I trust that they also do not forget their own personal petty agendas.

      Amen

      • weka 12.2.1
        31 August 2012 at 9:14 pm

        xtasy, what issues currently before parliament would you put lower than the gay marriage bill?

        • Tim G 12.2.1.1
          31 August 2012 at 11:23 pm

          xtasy, what issues currently before parliament would you put lower than the gay marriage bill?

          That’s a cruddy question, because other matters could be placed before Parliament if this Bill hadn’t been.

          But some issues for starters:

          – the minimum wage;
          – tax reform (reversal of tax cuts and increases to personal/trust/company tax rates to remove rorts)
          – regulation of the banking sector;
          – privatisation of state assets;
          – undermining and erosion of the ERA;
          – trade reform (TPPA);
          – legal aid (removal of access to justice) reform;
          – restructuring of the education system; and, just to remove the last possible bit of legal discrimination against gay people,
          – Jacinda Ardern’s COCA amendment intended to review the Adoption Act.

          As for the other legal protections? We had this debate in 2003 or so – civil unions are here. We are not a country (aside from discriminatory adoption laws) that discriminates against gay people.

        • xtasy 12.2.1.2
          31 August 2012 at 11:55 pm

          The “gay marriage bill” is from my view not a priority, so it should belong to “issues” or rather “perceived issues” at the bottom of the scale.

          And like Tim G points out above, NZ has for years now the option of “civil union”, which from my impression has accommodated gay rights very well, but also allowed heterosexual couples to use that option rather than “marriage”. The only issue with “civil unions” may be that it does not address any rights to adopt children.

          That is another matter, and for those, who value that right, the civil union legislation could be amended with less fuss.

          Indeed the “gay marriage” issue was so intensely debated and also written about in mainstream media, who just love such matters, as it is to many very “emotive” a topic.

          “Marriage” is by so many these days not even considered as an option for any relationship, so the pre-occupation with this is rather looking like nothing but a debate about lifestyle matters.

          Much fuss about the preferred rights of a few, it seems.

          • lprent 12.2.1.2.1
            1 September 2012 at 12:55 pm

            Private members bill. How can it have a priority apart from the MP who put it up and whoever helped her? It got drawn as part of a lottery – luck.

            Xtasy, thy name should be fool. Perhaps you should read something about the process of private members bills before make a complete dork of yourself.

            All that being said, now it has been drawn, I suspect this bill will pass.

            The civil union act and it’s subsequent use tends to indicate that the sky does not fall when people are give the choice to make formal partnerships (something that neither I or my various long term partners have never found needed to be done – has come up a few times). I haven’t noticed any particular differerences between the behaviour or longevity of my hetero defacto partnerships, hetero marriages, hetero and homo civil unions, or damn near any other long term relationships. Looking around, I’d say that the defacto ones last a lot longer. Apart from my parents who are on their 53rd year of happy bickering. I think my great aunt and uncle muse be up to 70+ now – something I associate with his being somewhat deaf after being a gunner in the desert.

            There is bugger all difference at any legal level these days. Perhaps they should just abolish the formal relationships? But I can’t see any reason to discriminate apart from a few religious bigots making the odd statement in some old documents from a society long long ago and far far away and edited by a damn committee. Just an excuse for their modern day cousins to make idiots of themselves.

            • xtasy 12.2.1.2.1.1
              1 September 2012 at 7:13 pm

              “Private members bill. How can it have a priority apart from the MP who put it up and whoever helped her? It got drawn as part of a lottery – luck.”

              Yes, “luck”, of course, luck for being drawn, but prior to that a member has time and opportunity to reflect on what gets drawn up and put into the hat, sorry, “ballot box”.

              So Wall made her personal priority choice, and living in Manurewa, one of the most impoverished and troubled communities in Auckland, I am still left to wonder about her.

              Apart from that it has not, nor will it, affect me personally whether gay and lesbian marriage will be legalised and thus set on equal footing with hetero-sexual couples. I must disappoint some, on that I am no bigot, as that is not the issue I raised.

              All I feel and think is: There could be and should be other matters dealt with rather than this.

              But since part of the law making in NZ’s parliament is based on a “lottery” style of politics and sheer “luck”, I will cross my fingers now, that better luck may happen to address more important matters soon.

              My concern is, that even if a voting member of the public knows about serious matters, points it out to sitting MPs, and they are not bothering to take that much note of it, are not bothering to do their jobs, then I have very little trust in what goes on in Parliament and NZ politics, luck or no luck.

              So get the bill passed a.s.a.p., that other matters are looked at by at least the few that may take note and their voters or prospective voters more seriously.

      • xtasy 12.2.2
        1 September 2012 at 12:05 am

        I may add to this post just made a little earlier:

        It was under the last Labour led government that MSD and Work and Income introduced the positions of Principal Health Advisor, Principal Disability Advisor, Regional Health Advisors, Regional Disability Advisors and Health and Disability Coordinators. As designated doctor training was planned for in late 2007 and early 2008, it also appears that this “training”, which was started in 2008, prior to the general election then, was all the makings of LABOUR.

        So no wonder that Labour MPs are not interested in discussing this, right?!

        They would dig up shit they introduced themselves.

        Hence there is a “grand coalition” sort of, between National and Labour, both having an interest in such a system, through which they “select” the medical practitioners WINZ uses and thus can to some degree possibly “influence” the decisions they make.

        That much for “independent” medical examinations. I believe ACC told us a story not long ago.

        But of course, “gay marriage rights” are a more emotive, headline catching and apparently to many a more “pupular” issue to deal with than such serious, sensitive stuff.

        • xtasy 12.2.2.1
          2 September 2012 at 10:52 pm

          As usual, NO interest or response in REAL issues. Maybe it is not “emotive enough”? I rest my case, too many people raise their voices and ignore things that may be even more important. But ignorance is certainly a quality of sorts, that many visitors from overseas have attested to me, as being a typical feature of NZ society!

  13. Tim G 13
    31 August 2012 at 11:16 pm

    So:

    a) Vicky32 had a point about such issues eclipsing some of the life-or-death issues that need addressing by Parliament;
    b) She totally shot herself in the foot and revealed her bigotry with every post, ranting and raving about “pretend marriage”;
    c) That wikipedia article about how either Testament may actually condone homosexuality was utterly unconvincing. But really, who cares what they thought when those stories were written?:
    c) Someone cracked out the marrying your dog/polyamory example, and I wondered, where was paedophilia? Isn’t that next on our pinko social agenda?; then
    d) Vicky came out and had a crack about how it was all about gay adoption, hinting (darkly) at that issue.

    Oh, and Vicky appears to be a purveyor of BBW websites – that was really weird, how she brought that whole thing up. REALLY WEIRD.

    In summary:

    1) Yes, this is an important issue, especially for homosexual people; and
    2) It’s a shame that the public, maybe because of how politics/media interact these days, has a “one-issue” attention span. Because I’m forced to concede that it does take the heat off the fact that our country is fucked and S&W is making political capital out of attending Big Gay Outs and playing to gay people with right-wing economic priorities.

    • Vicky32 13.1
      31 August 2012 at 11:30 pm

      Oh, and Vicky appears to be a purveyor of BBW websites – that was really weird, how she brought that whole thing up. REALLY WEIRD.

      Moron. Take some lessons in reading comprehension…

      Vicky came out and had a crack about how it was all about gay adoption, hinting (darkly) at that issue

      Moron again. See today’s Herald. No ‘dark hints’, it’s right there!

      • Tim G 13.1.1
        1 September 2012 at 12:00 am

        The dark hint you are making is to paedophilia (see subparagraph (c)).

        Keep spreading that love, you good Christian, you.

        EDIT: And I’ve read your sudden references to BBW websites again. And I still think it is REALLY WEIRD.

        • Vicky32 13.1.1.1
          1 September 2012 at 12:19 am

          The dark hint you are making is to paedophilia (see subparagraph (c)).

          Really? News to me, and I wrote it. You must have a sewer for a mind, if that’s what you thought I meant.
           

          Whatever you mean to imply with your obsession with my talking about a guy on 20/20 talking about how his paraphilia (BBW stuff) would one day be taken seriously, and how he was in the position of a poor wee LGBT person, escapes me. I wonder if you even know yourself what’s going on in your head?
          Because that’s all I meant to say. Transparent, me. Do us all a favour, and go get feral on someone else – because you just make me feel tainted reading your sh1te…

  14. Murray Olsen 14
    1 September 2012 at 12:14 am

    The issue was drawn from the ballot. It looks like the law will be passed. Great. After six months or so most of the bigots will stop spewing their hatred. In that time, I’ll be doing what I can about asset sales, stopping fracking, persuading people that voting MANA is worthwhile, wondering why the Paganis run Labour, and promoting a capital gains tax.
    I will not be having sex with a dog and nor will I be frequenting BBW websites, no matter what some of the posters on here may think about them.
    Oh, and I might throw in a bit of support for action on global warming and against the privatisation of prisons as well. Maybe a few other things while I’m at it, but time will tell.

    • Murray Olsen 14.1
      1 September 2012 at 2:14 am

      I also support a more effective delivery of mental health services, and free (maybe asset tested) public education. I’d do away altogether with student loans and make entry to university dependent on ability, not wealth.
      I’d hope to live in a society that recognised that who you love is not a choice, but that who you hate is. We’re still a lot further from that society than I had expected to be in the second decade of the third millenium. Let’s see this bill as a success and move on. The ones that are so violently against it are not those I would feel comfortable standing next to at the barricades anyway. They’ll always find something to divide the working class on. For them, today it’s being gay that means a working person can be unworthy, tomorrow it might be red hair.

      • Carol 14.1.1
        1 September 2012 at 6:58 am

        Murray, @2.14am (long after I’d gone to sleep – you guys sure have stamina) well said.

        • Murray Olsen 14.1.1.1
          1 September 2012 at 4:13 pm

          Sadly not stamina, Carol. I live in Brisbane and have a medical condition which plays havoc with my sleeping patterns. It also brings home more strongly to me that the socialist project must include rights for all the exploited or it is doomed to fail. I fight for the socialism of Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Liebknecht; a human socialism which was inclusive of all workers and for a brief period saw a huge flowering of the arts and an unleashing of the human spirit. Sadly, and partially because of outside interventions, we ended up with the grey boot in the face socialism of Stalin. Stalin no doubt would have said that any fight for bourgeois rights was a diversion for dilettantes and only the truly heroic heterosexual figures of socialist realism, labouring at the industrial forges with hammer firmly in hand, deserved any consideration. It is sad to see that his spirit still lives on among people who would think of themselves as being on the left.

  15. Vicky32 15
    1 September 2012 at 1:18 am

    Did you hold the same position when equal rights for Maori and women were being brought in too?…or is this just a gay thing?

    Once more for the (evidently) hard of thinking. I am 58 not 158, so what makes you think I was even alive when equal rights for Maori and women were being brought in?
     
    But if you want me to spell it out v-e-r-y  c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y (or be accused of deflection) what on earth about gay marriage = equal rights? Many gay people have had the breath-taking arrogance to compare a behaviour to a characteristic, and call themselves the new martyrs to discrimination, comparing themselves to blacks, slaves, Jews sought by Nazis, and now fatty wants me to compare his desire to ‘marry’ his b/f with the struggle for womens suffrage or the various struggles of Maori!
    If you, and he, can’t see the difference, then what about Gina Rinehart complaining that she poor billionaire, is hard done by compared to workers? I’ll spell that out ‘Gina Rinehart = gay activist’ and ‘workers she slagged off = workers/blacks/slaves/women. See my point?

    • rosy 15.1
      1 September 2012 at 1:40 am

      I am 58 not 158, so what makes you think I was even alive when equal rights for Maori and women were being brought in?

      Well you’re older than me and I clearly remember ToW issues such as the Raglan golf course, and the march led by Whina Cooper, not to mention Bastion Point, and the right for Maori to be an official language was 1987. Maori having the right to drink in pubs wasn’t that long ago either, what makes you think the fight for equal rights stopped some time age? As for women’s rights, I clearly recall equal work for equal pay campaigns, maternity leave and changes in employment law that meant an employer couldn’t discriminate against me because I had kids. And if I didn’t remember there are a few history and even current event sources that would remind me. On that point…

      Many gay people have had the breath-taking arrogance to compare a behaviour to a characteristic, and call themselves the new martyrs to discrimination, comparing themselves to blacks, slaves, Jews sought by Nazis,

      You do realise gays and (unionists) were against the wall before the jews? Easy to pick off one group at a time and the ones most dis-similar or most disruptive get picked off first.

      Anyway deflection. I think I see your point, but it’s not the one you want me to see.

    • Murray Olsen 15.2
      1 September 2012 at 1:52 am

      I remember the dawn raids on “overstayers” as well. I remember some Maori accepting “honorary white” status to play rugby in South Africa. I remember drunk rugby players indulging in a spot of queer bashing. The guy I knew who got bashed the most was a manual labourer. I’m not going to turn around to him and say “I support your right to a fair wage and let’s expropriate the bourgeoisie while we’re at it, but please try to not be such an attention seeker in future. Certain people on the “left” may not like it.”
      Yes Vicky, I get your point. It’s just not one I had ever expected to find in this blog.

    • Tim G 15.3
      1 September 2012 at 1:59 am

      “Many gay people have had the breath-taking arrogance to compare a behaviour to a characteristic, and call themselves the new martyrs to discrimination, comparing themselves to blacks, slaves, Jews sought by Nazis, and now fatty wants me to compare his desire to ‘marry’ his b/f with the struggle for womens suffrage or the various struggles of Maori!”

      Actually Vicky32, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is just as odious as discrimination based on any other natural human characteristic. It might feel good to spew bile at people who disagree with you and keep putting inverted commas around gay ‘marriage’, but it is offensive to gay people – when this bill passes they will be married, after all.

      You are also really full of venom – other posters are “plonkers”, “idiots” :smiley:, “morons”, “selfish”, “a drama queen”. Every comment that disagrees you is “assinine”, “utter bollocks”, “juvenile”… and you have the gall to talk about preaching love. Get out of here.

      • Vicky32 15.3.1
        1 September 2012 at 2:13 am

        you have the gall to talk about preaching love

        I think you’ll find I never did say anything about preaching love!
        What you see as venom, poor boy, I see as my impatience with fools – especially those being as abusive as they claim I am being. If you bothered to read, not skim, you’d have seen me admit above that I am not neurotypical. That means that like my son, who’s much further along the spectrum than I am, I get very off piste with anything less than instant comprehension. There are few things worse than having to explain, define and repeat, rinse and repeat…
        I am seriously disgusted with people who want to claim that they’re as badly off because someone sneers at their proclivities once in a while, as someone who, oh, I don’t know – can’t get enough to eat or any rest? 
        First world problems. The words grow and up spring to mind. So does my Mum’s phrase – ‘lift your mind above your belt’.. when all’s said and done, all this panic, 140+ comments and all this whingeing, is all about sex isn’t it? 

        Get out of here.

        Who died and made you king? Go watch some porn and calm down! 😀 😀 😀

        • Murray Olsen 15.3.1.1
          1 September 2012 at 2:25 am

          From what I’ve seen, it’s not instant comprehension that you have problems with. It’s your innate sense of superiority which makes you angry that other people don’t instantly agree with you. Comprehension of your scribblings is easy. After all, it’s not as if you ever write anything particularly deep. Nor do you ever examine a case properly, you merely fabricate straw men. I have never seen the argument made by anyone in favour of equal marriage rights that the issue is equal to those of a dead South African miner, yet you bring up this crap all the time.
          Cue abuse………

  16. Carol 16
    1 September 2012 at 7:23 am

    Ah, well. I see the debate continued on here long after I went to bed.

    If nothing else I have learned a few things about attitudes of some within the left, about the little seem of divisive and nasty prejudice that has been exposed. And I have learned a bit about how far the left still has to go before there is widespread acceptance of diversity and understanding of the debilitating impact prejudice and discrimination can have on some people’s lives. The pleasing thing is that this may be only true of a section of the left.

    It’s curious that one bill amongst many, one or two articles in MSM, and a couple of threads on the Standard are seen as a major distraction and diversion from (what I agree are) crucial issues: ones of poverty, income inequalities, the undermining of the welfare state, and the current government’s destructive agenda. And LGBT people are told by some to STFU and get back to the back of the bus, to be unheard, unseen and ignored. Such divisive and vitriolic ventings are not going to help the left move forward.

    And it’s curious that there is an implication in some of the comments, that homosexuality only seems to occur amongst the comfortable and privileged middle-classes. I know a few lesbians with a strong working-class consciousness (especially from my time living in London) who would be very vocal about the way working-class LGBT people have been rendered invisible in such debates: people who advocate strongly for the working-classes in a class-ridden society, as well as for women and against discrimination of LGBT people.

    I’m not an advocate of any form of marriage, but I’m happy that a marriage equality in the law will provide a small (though limited) message of acceptance of sexual and gender diversity.

    However, in view of some of the anti-LGBT sentiments and related denials of the debilitating impact of such, I fear that this law will mask the continuing, and often very destructive discrimination against LGBT people, especially the young, as evidenced in many credible studies. Some people will say that LGBT people have full equality now, there are no problems, nothing more needs to be done – most of the time we can ignore you all again….. and continue to sneer about you when we like.

  17. Adele 17
    1 September 2012 at 5:26 pm

    And it’s curious that there is an implication in some of the comments, that homosexuality only seems to occur amongst the comfortable and privileged middle-classes.

    Those that hold such views also have established for themselves a superior moral tone which allows them to pass judgement on the relative merits of the rights of others.

    I am a fairly passionate advocate for Māori rights but that in no way deters me from advocating for the rights of others to further social justice and equity in this country. Māori who are part of the LGBTQI community would see marriage rights as one small step towards social equity and not as a distraction from the other major issues impacting on their lives such as poverty, unemployment and racism.

    Marriage rights are a gain and we should celebrate them as such. The other matters are still ‘out there’ and Māori will continue to fight the good fight as a continuation of the struggle that we have fought for generations. .

    .

    • Carol 17.1
      1 September 2012 at 6:46 pm

      Thank-you, Adele.

      That’s good to read. It’s always strange to me when I see/here/read of people struggling for their own rights and/or survival, that don’t seem to have any empathy for other people’s struggles. This is even though we may not (often don’t) fully understand what other people’s problems and struggles involve.

  18. Jim Nald 18
    2 September 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Of the Asian MPs, congratulations to Rajen Prasad who has voted for the bill.

    What is the story with the four other Asian MPs who voted against the bill:

    Raymond Huo (Labour),

    Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (National),

    Melissa Lee (National), and

    Jian Yang (National) ?

    To these four, please explain!

    • millsy 18.1
      5 September 2012 at 10:37 am

      Asian societies are more conservative than western are. Which is starting the explain the drifting of minorites to right wing parties in the past 10 or so years.

  19. Bored 19
    5 September 2012 at 10:41 am

    Millsy, don’t confuse social conservatism with left or right. I agree that most conservatism is right wing focused but there is a definite streak of social conservatism across the left as well. Maybe the left is more progressive but the right can be progressive as well.