Marriage equality: living with prejudice

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, April 17th, 2013 - 115 comments
Categories: activism, gay rights, human rights, sexism - Tags: , , ,

It’s looking like the marriage equality law will pass it’s final reading in the House tonight.  It is a measure of how things have changed, indicating sexuality and gender prejudice are on the decline.

I’ve never been into marriage, one way or another.  However, the way the law has been up til now, constructs an institutional inequality, that conveys the message of LGBTI people being second class citizens.  It is the result of incorporating prejudice into law.  It gives heterosexual couples a route to a particular form of social status, aligned to legal privileges, that is not open to non-heterosexual couples. The choice should be there for all, regardless of sex, gender or sexuality.

And times are changing.  Gaynz shows the extent of the shift globally with a timeline of countries in which marriage has already been legally equalised, beginning with the Netherlands in 2001,  followed by several European countries, Canada, some South American countries, South Africa, Iceland, and several states and territories.

It’s being called a “historic” law change: a large number of people are preparing to celebrate tonight, in honour the milestone achieved by the success of the marriage equality bill.  For me, having lived through times when being the demonisation of those outside the hetero-norm was much stronger and extremely debilitating,  it is pleasing to see such positive public expressions from diverse people and groups.  I grew up as a lesbian in the late 50s and 60s.  Consequently, my teenage years and my 20s, were not the happiest.  I also have known lesbians and gays who suicided, were bashed in the streets by hate-mongers, did time in prisons and psychiatric hospitals, were separated from their families, were discriminated against at work.

However, the passing of the law will not bring an end to all prejudices, inequalities and debilitating practices.  Some opposition, especially from religious conservatives, still continues.  They seem unable or unwilling to understand that marriage equality takes nothing from them except their prejudices. Over at The Daily Blog, Steve Gray has posted a list of significant problems and challenges that LGBTI people still encounter, along with some background to each.  The list:

1. Transgender Rights. …

2. Gay teen youth suicide rates. …

3. Gay teen homelessness. …

4. Violence against gay people. …

5. HIV Infections are up, again. …

6. Live how you really want. … (“but issues facing us are still many)”

I would add that LGBTI people still experience the negative impacts of prejudice in their families, social lives and at work: the lesbian and gay people in my current workplaces keep a low profile, and only talk about their personal lives to those they know to be supportive.

For those who see LGTI fights to end prejudice, discrimination, hate and oppression as a nice to have; a diversion form the “real”  struggles….

You have NO FUCKING IDEA!

And for those also struggling to make do on low incomes, living in  world with oppressive prejudices and practices is an intolerable burden.

This song for Tom Robinson was another milestone that occurred when I lived in London in the 1980s.  I was totally astounded at the time, that such an in-your-face, pro-gay song would be on Top Of The Pops (the mainstream of Brit popular culture).

Today, here in NZ, is a day for celebration.  A large number of people are preparing to celebrate tonight, in honour the milestone achieved by the success of the marriage equality bill.  Take it away Topp Twins:

The Topp Twins and Georgina Beyer will be amongst the people crowding into the public gallery at parliament tonight.

DANCE ON!

 [Update]

Very good speech from Louisa Wall tonight – it provided sound arguments, while putting them in an international, social and historical context, focusing on cultural and Pacific diversity, and the impacts of anti-LGBTI prejudices.

115 comments on “Marriage equality: living with prejudice”

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1

    😀 It’s about bloody time too.

    The state never had any business discriminating against people in the first place.

    • vto 1.1

      “The state never had any business discriminating against people in the first place.”

      noted for future application

  2. Rich the other 2

    What amazes me is for years we have been told marriage is in decline and a thing of the past ,so why are they bothering.
    What’s even more remarkable is how parliament would pander to what can only be a form of mental illness, our brain commands every thing we do in life.

    [karol: I’ve explained why in my post. Are you saying homosexuality is a mental illness? Be careful. I will be moderating this thread quite strongly.

    I have lived with that bullshit demonising of homsexuality for as long as I can remember, and these days, I have little tolerance for it, especially on this day of celebration. It’s a long time since homosexuality was dropped as an indication of mental illness, and there were sound reasons for it being dropped]

  3. r0b 3

    Enjoy this day Karol – enjoy this day one and all!

  4. Tigger 4

    Nice post, Karol.

    I will indeed enjoy the day (if the Bill passes, I never count chickens…).

    But it is timely to remind everybody that the job isn’t done, it’s just starting to be done.

    And remind everyone that this only brings me and my husband into line with heterosexual people. It’s isn’t a ‘win’ so much as an ‘even’. I’m going to celebrate getting the same rights that straight people have enjoyed just for being. Yes, I’m happy that I can now turn our civil union into a marriage. But I’m sad that it had to take this long.

    • Lanthanide 4.1

      “(if the Bill passes, I never count chickens…).”

      Apparently it’s very very rare for a bill to pass 2nd reading but not 3rd. I’d be interested if anyone has some facts on that.

  5. ianmac 5

    Like the sunrise on a beautiful summer’s day.

  6. ghostrider888 6

    Reveal “The Devil Inside…the devil inside…every single one of us…the devil inside”

    IN XTC

  7. Roy 7

    Although I am straight, I will be very happy when the Bill becomes law. However nothing and nobody will induce me to listen to the talentless Topp Twins.

    • karol 7.1

      Heh. Well, a matter of taste. Of course, listening to them is a matter of choice. Most of the pro-LGBT celebratory songs I thought of were non-NZ and tended to be 1980s disco stuff “(I Will Survive”, “We are Family” etc) I have always found the Topp Twins come across better in their live shows than on TV. They are very good at interacting with their audience.

      In the context of this Bill, the Twins have always been unapologetically OUT. They have also given their energies to supporting a load of left wing causes in their time.

      PS: I dated “Glad to be Gay” as 1980s – on second thoughts, I think it was on ToTP in the late 70s.

  8. King Kong 8

    If Gays getting married gives them one less thing to mince around moaning about then that has got to be a good thing. Let them adopt babies next then they can totally stfu.

    Maybe if they marry they might give each other less Aids and STD’s, another good thing.

    • fender 8.1

      There was a theory Aids came from sickos having sex with monkeys, but I’m sure there’s no human willing to do it with you so you can stfu anytime now.

      • King Kong 8.1.1

        That’s my life partner soon to be husband you are calling a sicko. When will the intolerence end, interspecies attraction is something you are born with.

        • McFlock 8.1.1.1

          Marriage requires informed consent. I’m not sure an overgrown chimp has the mental wherewithal to make a life-changing commitment. Your husband-to-be should be investigated by the SPCA.

          • King Kong 8.1.1.1.1

            If I can smoke a cigarette, go into space, appear in PG Tips ads and ride a tiny bicycle then, by God, I can marry.

            • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1.1

              My point exactly.
              Are any of those sensible life choices? Lung cancer, proxy in case the thing explodes, shafted on the residuals by your manager, and impractical transportation?

              And you’re not allowed to “sign” the register simply by throwing your faeces around the room.

        • fender 8.1.1.2

          You had better read the bill again, it won’t be legalising beastiality, not even for hand-reared monkeys.

    • Tigger 8.2

      The last person I saw mincing was our Prime Minister, also known as ‘ a straight’.

    • kiwi_prometheus 9.1

      I like the use of “LGBT” there joe, putting the L for Lesbian first even though they are far far few in number than gay guys, and played a much smaller role in gay rights. But I have always been aware from comments expressed by gay guys that lesbians always try to take over and hog the resources.

      • Murray Olsen 9.1.1

        What are the numbers exactly, KP? You seem to be such an expert on lesbians.

  9. kiwi_prometheus 10

    You’ve completely redefined marriage to mean something else, something far less and seriously flawed.

    That’s nothing to celebrate.

    Karol, now I know your sexuality, it doesn’t surprise me of course, especially your Left Academic ideas grounded in that abysmal Social Constructionist nonsense peddle by Feminists/Lesbians in the Sociology and Literary Depts of Universities throughout the West.

    Gay ‘marriage’ is an ideological driven campaign.

    [lprent: You’re on the verge of triggering my author protection reflexes. This is just a gentle warning (with a irritatingly unused large club in hand).

    You are just talking complete crap IMO anyway, but you have been generally remaining within policy bounds, with the exception of recidivist misogynist habit of selectively targeting our female authors. I’d strongly suggest that you desist from doing that or I will take considerable pleasure in booting you.

    Personally I just think that you have a problem thinking that any female human should be allowed to do anything apart from look adoringly at the size of your micro-sized dick (and with difficulty, not laughing) – because that is what you read like. You have really have just wound up being born in the wrong century. In fact I’m having a problem thinking of a time period when your apparent view of females being unthinking chattel slaves would be acceptable.

    Nice when someone provides me with an opportunity to be at least as insulting as you have been…. In my opinion, you just appear to be an embarrassing disgrace to all civilised males of any persuasion who are reading you. It isn’t often we see someone whose only real argument appears to consist of variations or “urgggh” with a few ill-understood phases attached as camouflage. ]

    [karol: further to Lynn’s warning, k_p: I have already warned if you persist in indulging your tiresome preoccupations by tossing out labels, without engaging in any meaningful way with the substance of my posts, that they will be moved to open mike]

    • Populuxe1 10.1

      You are a cretin. If by “ideologically driven” you mean “a natural consequence of human rights and social justice”, you’d be correct. And you know jack shit about lesbians.

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.1.1

        “a natural consequence of human rights and social justice”

        Natural? As compared to Socially Constructed?

        That’s a new slant , you lot are all over the place, incapable of presenting a coherent philosophical argument which only indicates how flawed your ideological crusade is.

        • karol 10.1.1.1

          “Natural” consequences” generally refer to something that is a consequence of a preceding set of conditions or actions – it’s not about the physical world of nature in the way you are referring to.

          You have yet to explain what you mean by “social constructionism” or why it’s a problem in some theories.

          Myself – I think social construction is a part of the complex nature-nurture interactions between the human biology and the environment, including the social environment.

          As far as I can discern by your superficial use of the term you seem to understand social construction in some pretty static kind of way.

          Social arrangements, the institutions of society (like marriage) are socially constructed. I can’t see how that is disputable.

    • kiwi_prometheus 10.2

      lprent, anytime you want to add something to the debate about the revisionist concept of marriage or the dominance of Social Constructionism on which gay politics is grounded, just go ahead. 8)

      • lprent 10.2.1

        Ah dumbarse diversion. But I usually don’t get involved in this topic except as a moderator, but I’ll make a wee statement about why

        I have absolutely no problem with people wanting to get “married” regardless of gender or sexual orientation. I just find it hugely irrelevant as an institution these days, and rather wonder why they bother making a fuss over it. I’d personally just abolish the whole institution as being quite flawed and a really good indication of incipient failure..

        I never have been married which does make me part of the minority in my generation. I haven’t therefore had a “failed” marriage. But offhand I can’t think of anyone in my generation nor the next generation who is still “married” and has been in a “marriage” for more than a decade (I’d have to look up when my brother got married).

        In my parents generation, they virtually all got married. Problem is that my parents are one of the few couples in that generation that I know who have remained married for more than a few decades. They’ve been happily bickering for more than 50 years, and started by buggering off and getting married at a registry office complete with their parents disapproval. Probably why it lasted – they skipped the ceremony and other garbage surrounding the institution.

        On the other hand I can think of many current unmarried relationships that have lasted for a decade or more, complete with kids. On the whole, most unceremonious relationships, if they last more than ~5-7 years seem to last forever in my observation.

        It isn’t hard to look at the institution of marriage and think that the institution itself is a pretty good indicator of how to make a relationship fail. Personally I have no particular sympathy for anyone wanting to perpetuate it.

        [lprent: Now the irrelevant diversion is over. Don’t attack my authors or you’ll lose the ability to comment. ]

        • Clockie 10.2.1.1

          I doubt if you can blame the institution of marriage itself for relationship failures. My wife and I married in 1981(still happily bickering), my brother married 1985 ditto, my much younger sister married 1997, four or five cousins married in the 80’s and 90’s and still going strong. It’s more about who you choose, why you choose them and whether you mean what you say when you make your vows. Of course there will always be a failure rate, but anecdotally I’d say that the children of failed marriages often still get married but try to make a much better job of choosing well and staying together because they recognise that they chose there partner for good reasons initially, their partner is still the same person (barring mental illness, addictions and the like) and in an imperfect world you can spend a lot of time and cause an awful lot of pain in a futile attempt to find the “perfect” mate. The (minority) amongst our friends and families whose relationships (formal and informal) failed, did so because of bad selection in the first place or what could be generically termed weaknesses of character. Then again, sometimes it’s just a matter of luck. C’est la vie..

          • lprent 10.2.1.1.1

            I tend to look at it as as shit happens system. You really can’t figure out how it will work out for a decade. For me I find the decision to get into a relationship more binding than a law.

    • Peter 10.3

      This is nasty, plain and simple. I often thought that once of the essences of conservatism was the strong protecting the weak (well, certainly that’s certainly the type of conservatism that has made NZ into the nation it is today), but nah, you are just nasty.

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.3.1

        Opposing a revisionist approach to marriage is nasty?

        Objecting to the ideology of Social Constructivism and its proponents is nasty?

        Whatever.

        • QoT 10.3.1.1

          What’s “revisionist” is pretending that marriage has ever just been about one man + one woman. Given the amount of opposition to this law based on Christian ideals, I can only suggest people actually try reading the Bible …

          • Clockie 10.3.1.1.1

            Heh. Not to mention the bit about Onan.. Then again there’s all that stuff about turning the people of Sodom and Gomorrah into pillars of salt. (yes I got sent to a Methodist Sunday school in my little grey flannel suit as a child (sigh).

    • McFlock 10.4

      I’m looking forward to the law change, not just because of the basic decency of the state recognising the needs and rights of citizens with one further piece of discrimination removed, but also because failure of the world to crumble after the Royal Assent will have a devastating effect on the psyches of already-deranged bigots like our local sparkyboy.

      They will either realise that they’re massive dicks, or they’ll retreat farther into a fantasy world and eventually shut the door behind them.

      • kiwi_prometheus 10.4.1

        That’s right McFlock scream BIGOT!!!! at anyone who doesn’t buy into the propaganda.

        • McFlock 10.4.1.1

          I didn’t scream anything.
          The screaming was purely your own projection.
          Which tends to make [what I take to be] your implied point (that by using the emotive term “bigot” I’m escalating the emotional intensity dialogue in order to distract from my own lack of logical argument) pretty hypocritical.

          But seeing as you want to play that game:
          Immediately after this evening’s vote, I will be going on a date with a hedgehog with a view to marrying him. We just work so well together, even though at this moment before the vote such a thing would be illegal and unthinkable. Such is the degradation of society that will occur after vote3… /sarc

    • kiwi_prometheus 10.5

      “with a few ill-understood phases attached as camouflage”

      Ill understood by you that is, lprent.

      Ok none of you are gone to budge from your entrenched positions, so I will leave you to your little hollow victory party tonight.

      But I will continue to oppose hijacked Feminism, Social Constructionism etc whether you like it or not.

      [lprent: As I said – you’d make a ratshit soldier with proforma camo skills. ]

    • NZ Femme 10.6

      Meh. Your opinion is as relevant to this lesbian as the micro-dick alluded to by Lprent. You poor sad little person. Our world is leaving you behind to choke on your own froth.

      • King Kong 10.6.1

        I realise old KP is being a bit of a nob but if you lezzers weren’t generally so stroppy and nasty it would be much easier to like you more. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

        [karol: up til this point you stayed on the acceptable side of moderation for this particular thread. But anymore unfounded negative prejudiced statements like this will be moved or deleted]

        • karol 10.6.1.1

          KK, you are reversing the actual chronology. The nastiness in this thread was started by K_P.

          And please, do show where there is evidence of my general stroppiness and nastiness throughout my many posts and comments on TS?

          • King Kong 10.6.1.1.1

            [karol: apology not accepted and it also diverts to attacking another TS author – deleted. Best you leave this line of argument]

            • felix 10.6.1.1.1.1

              “some/most/a majority of lesbians are strop bags”

              That’s exactly the same as what you said above. Replacing “generally” with “a majority” changes nothing.

              • Alanz

                That bit from the ape is dripping with insincerity.

              • karol

                Agreed, felix. And KK doesn’t make any of the same sort of comment about k_p.

                His responses are in keeping with the old attitude that women should always smile and be nice – any attempt to stand of for our rights being dismissed as “stroppy”, while it being more acceptable for men to talk tough.

                After a lifetime of k-p style nastiness, it’s hard not to get a bit stroppy.

                • Roy

                  What’s wrong with stroppy anyway? In a man it is called ‘confident’ and ‘assertive’. My partner is stroppy and I love it. Can’t stand doormats of any gender or sexuality.

        • felix 10.6.1.2

          These bigots are turning this site into whaleoil. Bout time someone stomped on them I reckon.

          • karol 10.6.1.2.1

            You’re right, felix. generally I am a lenient moderator… but I did say this thread would be tightly moderated…. warning coming up.

          • Rhinocrates 10.6.1.2.2

            Agree. This is a moment for celebration. Having idiots try to spoil it, however hopeless, pathological (K-P seems as obsessed as Dad For Justice) however defeated they are isn’t even funny any more. Let them complain on Whaleoil.

        • NZ Femme 10.6.1.3

          I honestly can’t be fucked trying to catch flys with honey. Have always found a well executed flick of my wrist with a fly swat to be more effective. Why waste honey on a shit eating fly?

  10. ghostrider888 11

    well Lynn, as an aside , we both equally have needed our sleep to over-come a variation of the cold.

    • lprent 11.1

      Problem is that I wound up with so much sleep while I was fighting off the bug, that I couldn’t really get to sleep last night. Finally departed the bed so I wouldn’t disturb Lyn with continuous position changes and went off and read for 5 hours until about 6am. Lightly snoozed for few hours in the morning, got up and went to work.

  11. just saying 12

    Bronski Beat -Small Town Boy

    Disco was mainly a crime against music imo, but I always loved this song, it captured for me how life was for anyone who dared to be different when I was growing up. Thank god some things do change for the better, and even though we have a long way to go, this is a great cause for celebration.

    Thank you Labour Party (with the notable exceptions that I won’t mention here). It’s not often these days that I have occasion to be unequivocably proud of the party, but this is a very real achievement. (Not forgetting the Greens but I do see this as a proud moment for Labour particularly).

    I can’t help thinking that those who see “identity” struggles as detracting from what’s important are really seeking a new hierarchy with themselves at the top – but still with a majority of “little people” who don’t really matter.

    Ghostrider, you are very enigmatic, and I often enjoy your comments, but I’m gonna come straight out and ask – Do you have a problem with Karol and QoT? Because I feel you can be quite snide in your comments in response to their posts. Maybe I’m imagining it….

    edit: just saw your comment directly above, Ghostrider – not what I was talking about.

    • karol 12.1

      Ah yes, disco and Bronski Beat were of their time. But I danced many times to such music in the lesbian clubs and discos in london,, back then.

      Bronski/Communard’s Don’t Treat Me This Way, was also very dance-able back then.

      Agreed on the “identity” criticisms – but not so much that they are seeking a new hierarchy, as to re-instate an old crumbling hierarchy.

    • ghostrider888 12.2

      Not at all, just saying, that is not the first time that bolt has been levelled; I admire the work and thought karol puts in immensely, and Queenie has an interesting take on things; you do understand projection don’t you? Yello? Erasure? Yazoo?

      anyway, here is an Orange Slushy before I go green 😉 and watch a movie. ceow baby. Edie:

      • just saying 12.2.1

        There have been many comments that have led me to wonder. But from this thread, can you please explain your hit-and-run “Devil Inside” link? Particularly as a member of the Salvation Army.

        And yes, I’m familiar with “projection”.

    • ghostrider888 12.3

      some of the ghosts good friends have been Lesbians; gay men, not so much; we light up in different circles, just saying however that many of the greatest social science thinkers have been, wait for it, Fabulously Able to Grasp whatS going down.

  12. Well done to all MPS who will vote for this bill. A great day for NewZealand and a great day for human rights.

  13. Mary 14

    Winston’s just referred to the savings referendum he initiated 16 years ago which people rejected and which therefore means the country’s broke, to argue that the same-sex marriage issue should also go to a referendum. On his own logic, if the question were rejected we’d still have the inequality that the bill sets out to remove. Priceless.

    • karol 14.1

      He’s livened up the debate though – and some fun tweets:

      Cunliffe:

      Great speeches on #marriageequality. And one from Winston.

      Bomber:

      I don’t remember any party standing on hating Muslims but Prosser did that without a referendum Winston #marriageequality

      Nikki McLay (who?)

      Oh gawd, Winston…he sounds like my grandpa muttering about his rates bill. #marriageequality

      • Populuxe1 14.1.1

        Bomber’s statement makes no sense (nothing new there) and Nikki is being ageist.

        • karol 14.1.1.1

          Well, I guess Nikki is being ageist – but Winston did remind me of my dad too (kind of old style, pre-neoliberal, National Party-supporting conservative)…. and I’m pretty old.

          Bomber was just referring to the NZ First MP’s anti-Muslim statements in response to Peters saying they prefer things being put out to referendum – highlights the range of prejudices within NZ First.

          Banks gave a surprising speech in favour of the Bill, and Flavell added a Maori historical perspective on pre-European acceptance of same sex relationships.

          Williamson was funny: e.g. on the email he’d had saying that the bill caused the drought.

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.2

          Did it occur to you that Winston’s speech might really have reminded Nikki McLay of her grandpa muttering?

          • Populuxe1 14.1.1.2.1

            Which is being either unkind about her grandfather or unkind about Winston depending on your perspective – either way it is using age as an insult

  14. Mary 15

    Borrows sounded drunk. He was cheered at the beginning when he declared he’d changed his mind but ended up almost incoherent, then nobody said a thing when he’d finished.

  15. Yes 16

    Great victory

  16. Descendant Of Sssmith 17

    Well done and about time.

    Thanks to all those who have lobbied and argued and fought and debated and voted to get this through – apart from the actual voting – going back many years.

    It’s a shame it took so long but it’s there and it feels good.

    Having noticed the relapse on this post into 80’s videos if you really want a happy but bad video you can’t go past the awful

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=jF2ImyQjzyc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjF2ImyQjzyc

    I’ve never understood the regression from The Damned to this but just put it down to that quaint British tolerance for eccentricity.

  17. BLiP 18

    I haven’t been following this issue at all. If gays wanna use the word “marriage”, yeah, go for it, but big deal. Scuse my troglodyte nature. With environmental degradation, creeping Big Brother, the deliberately cruel marginalisation of society’s weakest, unemployment, diaspora of our finest, etc., etc., more Labour Party gay stuff seems, oh, I dunno, just, meh! As far as I know, the civil union legislation provides all legal rights that “marriage” conveys. This was confirmed by some chap on Ted Knight Jim Mora’s afternoons National Radio show. Is it true – that a gay couple in a civil union have the same rights as a straight couple in a marriage? If so, what’s the big deal? Judging by the chatter down at the pub tonight, the end result among the knuckle-draggers has been to confirm the worst rumours and filth peddling put about by Blubber Boy and The Sewer in 2008. South Auckland is not well pleased. If its not true, then I may have to reconsider.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 18.1

      Here’s the governments view of the differences.

      http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/20064

      • BLiP 18.1.1

        Heh! So, Labour fucked it up in 1986 and then again in 2004. S’pose its about time the issue got sorted once and for all. Still, seems like Boutique Legislation. The Mondayisation Act provides a far better reason to party, not that anyone’s asking me. Where’s bar ?

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 18.1.1.1

          I suspect that in those earlier times this bill would not have got through.

          It would be nice to think that it could have but the steady progression of legislative change reflects the steady progression of public opinion towards this point.

          Younger people in particular don’t have a problem with this but there’s been a steady swing across all

        • karol 18.1.1.2

          Mondayisation of those two days does nothing to improve the situation of us weekend workers, already getting less holidays. It’s good some workers are getting a little more holidays, but the Bill doesn’t correct the greatest unfairness.

    • karol 18.2

      You know, I spend more time posting on and campaigning for those other issues than I have for LGBTI issues in recent years – because I know how devastating the “neoliberal” shift and changing climate is. However, we can campaign on more than one important issue at once.

      Thanks for ignoring all the damage that has occurred to the lives of large numbers of LGBTI people as touched upon in my post. And for confirming that prejudice still continues. LGBTI people have also been amongst the weakest and most cruelly demonised people in (allegedly) liberal and despotic states (think 3rd Reich for instance). When they are already marginalised Big Brother will include them in the ones they stomp on with their big boot of oppression.

      It’s glad to know that, for you, our/their oppression has second class status. Like I said in my post, some people have NFI!

      And, as far as I can see, Wall has had some impact on shifting views in South Auckland – such changes do not happen over night.

      I do hope you do reconsider, and shift your mind to not supporting prejudice, wherever it comes from, whether South Auckland or the North Shore; in or outside the Labour Party.

      • just saying 18.2.1

        You have to be pretty f*%king arrogant to read a post and thread in which your f@%$ing comrades tell you about their experience of predjudice, exclusion, violence and oppression, and their jubilation at finally achieving full equality under the law, and with a supercilious tut-tut, and regal flick of the wrist you write:

        what’s the big deal? ..

        And “helpfully” list for their information, the people and issues that do actually matter.

        Sometimes I despair of the left.

      • BLiP 18.2.2

        Heh! U MAD 🙂

        I guess its my fault for being late to the party and assuming the civil union option provides the same rights in everything except entitlement to the word “marriage”. If that’s not the case then, sure, don’t explain, just go all ad hom, I mean, why not? I was getting it in the ear all last night from my knuckle-dragger mates, might as well get some spittle-flecked invective from the other side. The gratuitous Godwin kinda makes it hard to tell youse apart in this “debate”.

        I still have no reason to reconsider my bemusement at all the fuss. I was just askin’. I’m kinda shifted with the idea that 1986 was “too early”, politically speaking, but I would’ve been fine with it. 2004 would have been okay . . . the issue would be over by now, and all this contrived agony dissipated nine years ago. Still, nicely played. Great work by the organisers on the “equality” framing and overall perception management, as well as the slick playing of the system. What’s next . . . extra health funding for gingers turned suicidal by bullying?

        I guess we’ll see an indication of the “Louisa Effect” on South Auckland in October when the local body election results come in. Last time there were herculian efforts put in by activists on the ground. One night I got home a little before 4am after spending the previous 20 hours banging up bill boards and delivering pamphlets. Three hours sleep later and it was off to wave pacards at some intersection and then more pamphlets. We’re lucky this time in that Len “the watersiders’ friend” hasn’t got any kind of decent opposition for Mayor but I worry about councillors and the local boards and voter participation.

        • just saying 18.2.2.1

          Redheads have always had full equality under NZ law.
          And trying to score a cheap point by belittling anyone who is or has been suicidal as a result of bullying…………………. hilarious.

          • BLiP 18.2.2.1.1

            Not gay redheads, though. Rather than belittling those made suicidal by bullying I’m suggesting efforts be made to secure the provision of additional resources. In fact, gay redheads must have had it nearly the toughest of all in this harsh world. And, why shouldn’t a group particularly targetted for bullying receive special attention? Seems like a worthy cause to me. Just the sort of thing Labour can get its teeth into.

        • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.2

          You’re dealing with on the ground local reaction and I for one do not downplay what you are saying. However I do think that in a couple of months time the impact of this law passing in peoples minds will be generally minimal as they move on to the next thing.

          Big wins in economic equality are needed next, there have been none for a very long time, and that is an issue which is far larger and more complex in scope.

          • karol 18.2.2.2.1

            Good points, CV.

            I also think that if the left parties put up solidly left wing policies that offer something significant to low income people, the marriage law won’t be troubling them so much. It’s mainly when they think they are being ignored that some people turn on other groups that they think has got more favourably support. e.g. if left parties only offer soft neoliberalism, many low income people are bound to get a little pissed off.

            • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.2.1.1

              Absolutely. When the so-called left parties are gentle on neoliberalism but strong on same sex marriage, doubts and anger is going to arise.

          • BLiP 18.2.2.2.2

            Wednesday night at my local – in the heart of South Auckland – is pool night. Several nearby sports clubs have their training on Wednesdays and lots of the coaches and “over 30s” filter in afterwards. This week we were hosting so there was a visiting pool team and their hang-abouts from another South Auckland pub. Anyhow, the place was packed. The juke was box pumping out the tunes and the tv was on, but silent. When the news pictures came on the box, a sustained and raucous booing ensued. I know, I know . . . unacceptable behaviour, terrifying for the gays that were in the pub, and a stark example of what this new legislation is seeking to stamp out in society. I was disgusted and dismayed and so too were others . . . why all this hate, we asked each other, and all over getting “married”, FFS! As a known “leftie”, the rest of the night was spent listening – no point in seeking dialogue – to femmenazi this, femmenazi that, WTF is Labour come to, used to be about the workers and wages and houses and railways and meatworks and yadda yadda yadda.

            Today I feel let down by both sides of the left movement. This “marriage thing” has struck a raw and nasty nerve. What good is equality when we are divided? I don’t know how else it could have played out, though. I hope you’re correct about a couple of months. I really do.

            • weka 18.2.2.2.2.1

              “As a known “leftie”, the rest of the night was spent listening – no point in seeking dialogue – to femmenazi this, femmenazi that, WTF is Labour come to, used to be about the workers and wages and houses and railways and meatworks and yadda yadda yadda.”

              Leaving aside the misogyny, they do have a point. To my mind the issue isn’t that Labour shouldn’t have pursued gay marriage equality, but that if they were fulfilling their other obligations as a left wing party (workers, wages, housing etc, and esp in the historical context of Labour) then the gay marriage bill wouldn’t be such an issue.

            • just saying 18.2.2.2.2.2

              What do you mean you feel let-down by both sides?
              How have marriage-equality proponents hurt non-LGBTI South Aucklanders?
              As a born and bred South Aucklander, I think you underestimate the SA electorate. Even most of the reddest-necks, won’t cast their votes on the basis of their prejudice.

              And remember, the thing about bullying is that it creates a false appearance of consensus because few want to argue with a jeering, aggressive mob, and some even join in for fear of being targetted themselves.

              • BLiP

                The “i-want-to-get-married” brigade have hurt non-gay South Aucklanders by generating division that could have been avoided and given wavering supporters another reason to either not bother voting or vote conservatively. Just like non South Aucklanders, many locals are tempted by the fallacious “ashparashunal” meme and have fallen victim to the deliberate “othering”. I know the maxim is “the electorate is never wrong” but sometimes it is. New Zealanders have now twice voted for a government which is robbing them blind and still that lying bankster nice man tops the polls.

                Weka above said what I was thinking but couldn’t articulate.

                • weka

                  Except I’m not saying that gay marriage advocates have hurt anyone, I’m saying those people you were referring to in the pub have been let down by the Labour Party.

                • just saying

                  The Labour Party has hurt, and continues to hurt South Aucklanders. Standing up for what’s right just once in four years, on one issue, affecting one particular group, may be divisive, but its what Labour hasn’t done that is the cause of the division.

            • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.2.2.3

              Ah allow me to clarify.

              The specific negative impressions of the passing of the marriage equality legislation I think will disappear in a couple of months.

              I think what you experienced in the pub is related in terms of a “lightning rod” for disastisfaction with Labour but that disatisfaction is far broader based than this one issue or piece of legislation. This is with regards to the long talked about “disconnect” Labour has with its working class base, a disconnect it really doesn’t care about.

            • lprent 18.2.2.2.2.4

              It was exactly the same when the homosexual law reform bill passed in ?1988. For that matter in a more subdued form when the civil union bill got passed

              • Colonial Viper

                Three strong ground breaking pieces of same sex rights legislation passed by Labour

                Looking forwards to three strong ground breaking pieces of labour rights legislation passed by Labour

        • karol 18.2.2.3

          Blip: Ad hom? Where? I responded to the content of your comments. I usually aim to stick to the topic not the person.

          Godwin? Sometimes it’s relevant. And in this case my comment was a response to your “Big Brother” mention – which opens the door to the Godwin angle.

          Great to hear you have been campaigning for AKL. We do need a strong left in the city. But that doesn’t mean we all stop campaigning against other things that damage people’s lives.

          Sure it’s hard dealing with homophobia, whatever your sexuality. Some of us have been on the receiving end of some of the nastier stuff, and have had to live with the impact on ourselves.

          And it also damages the lives of low income LGBTI people living in South Auckland. It’s not like all low income people in Auckland are solidly heterosexual.

          Civil Union gives almost the same rights as marriage. But marriage includes rights to parenthood of the partner’s/shared children, As in Louisa Wall’s speech last night.

          But, apart from that, full marriage equality carries the message that LGBTI people are not second class citizens.

          I’m not into marriage myself, but recognise marriage equality as an important step forward.

          • weka 18.2.2.3.1

            “Godwin? Sometimes it’s relevant. And in this case my comment was a response to your “Big Brother” mention – which opens the door to the Godwin angle.”

            Karol, you didn’t invoke Godwin’s Law. You pointed to an entirely relevant piece of history.

  18. Murray Olsen 19

    I’m happy that gay people can now make a conscience choice to not get married. This right has been denied to the gay community for far too long.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago