Marriage equality set to pass

33 comments on “Marriage equality set to pass ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peter 1

   28 August 2012 at 9:03 am

   That is excellent news. The sound of the dog-whistles is obviously losing its effect.
2. David H 2

   28 August 2012 at 9:19 am

   But again while everyone is focused on this and Key is still fanning the flames.
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7558640/Torrid-response-to-gay-marriage-bill

   This little gem sneaks out from Parata.
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7560539/Special-schools-closure-plan-angers

   But then again nothing surprises me from this mob. And where’s labour??? still silent.
   • Carol 2.1

     28 August 2012 at 9:26 am

     It’s here

     http://www.labour.org.nz/news/special-school-cuts-short-change-students

     and here:

     http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00396/special-school-cuts-short-change-students.htm

     Special School cuts short-change students
     Monday, 27 August 2012, 6:41 pm
     Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party

     27 August 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT

     Special School cuts short-change students

     National’s decision to close down half of the country’s Residential Special Schools is all about saving money at the cost of students who need these schools the most, Labour’s Special Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says.
     [… more at the link]

     Maybe the problem is that Labour’s response didn’t get much cut through to the MSM, but they did make an early response. And there is a quote from the LP press release in the article you linked to, David.
   • Ianmac from Vietnam 2.2

     28 August 2012 at 2:01 pm

     I do believe we are expected to cheer and shout support for Parata. 50% of Special Schools will stay open! We are so lucky. Alleluya!
   • millsy 2.3

     28 August 2012 at 8:46 pm

     If the closure of other specialist institutions is anything to go by, ie borstals, mental health, etc, chances are that things are going to go to shit very quickly, with people falling through the cracks quite freely.
   • Dv 2.4

     28 August 2012 at 9:40 pm

     Maybe the chch school is being replaced by a charter school.
3. The Baron 3

   28 August 2012 at 10:08 am

   A 10 vote margin at first reading should be enough to see this all the way through according to someone, somewhere…

   Though I’m not one for counting chickens before they have hatched. I for one will be watching the debate and vote count with interest, in the desperate hope that in 2012 there is no room for overt homophobia in our house of representatives.

   For now though, this is excellent.
   • Lightly 3.1

     28 August 2012 at 10:25 am

     70 for means 50 again = a 20 vote margin. Although, it would take only 10 MPs to switch..
     • The Baron 3.1.1

       28 August 2012 at 11:07 am

       Of course. Durrr.
   • Lanthanide 3.2

     28 August 2012 at 12:06 pm

     “in the desperate hope that in 2012 there is no room for overt homophobia in our house of representatives.”

     John Banks is there so no chance.
     • The Baron 3.2.1

       28 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

       Ah, yes, NZ’s biggest bigot stands firm within what is supposedly our libertarian party.

       That he is ACT’s sole MP and that he is “not yet decided” on this bill shows how confused and irrelevant ACT now is.
       • felix 3.2.1.1

         28 August 2012 at 4:05 pm

         Is there even such a thing as “ACT” any more?
       • millsy 3.2.1.2

         28 August 2012 at 8:51 pm

         Banks says he is going to vote for it after all.

         OTOH it looks NZ First has finally jettisoned its socially liberal wing, after years of trying.
4. Tracey 4

   28 August 2012 at 10:23 am

   Well done to the Human Rights Commission for making a clear statement yesterday that Churches do NOT have to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Frankly that should be the end of it.

   Churches(it seems) are entitled to refuse on the grounds their invisible friend says “no”. That’s fine, but NOT a valid reason to stop it becoming a law in the country that gay folks can marry.
   • Dr Terry 4.1

     28 August 2012 at 12:09 pm

     Mostly “ëvangelical” (or fundamentalist) churches are screaming forth their prejudices (on real issues of the country, we hear next to nothing from them). There are Christians, like myself (a pastor of 50 years standing) who thoroughly support the same sex marriage bill. We actually believe in the “love” churches are supposed to proclaim!
     • Tracey 4.1.1

       28 August 2012 at 2:08 pm

       Good man. Well said.
5. Roy 5

   28 August 2012 at 11:14 am

   Let’s hope it sails through.
6. kiwi_prometheus 6

   28 August 2012 at 11:35 am

   Another nail in the coffin of marriage.

   Given the circus show marriage has been reduced too by the Kardashian like antics of breeders, I guess its inevitable the fairies get a chance to join in. 🙄

   John Pilger _>

   “Who among the fawners and luvvies at Clooney’s Hollywood moneyfest [ for Gay Marriage ] shouted, “Remember Bradley Manning”? To my knowledge, no prominent spokesperson for gay rights has spoken against Obama’s and Biden’s hypocrisy in claiming to support same-sex marriage while terrorising a gay man whose courage should be an inspiration to all, regardless of sexual preference.”

   “On 12 May, in Sydney, Australia, home of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, a protest parade in support of gay marriage filled the city centre. The police looked on benignly. It was a showcase of liberalism. Three days later, there was to be a march to commemorate the Nakba (“The Catastrophe’), the day of mourning when Israel expelled Palestinians from their land. A police ban had to be overturned by the Supreme Court.”

   And don’t forget the feminists and CIA tools, felix et al, hanging Julian Assange out to dry.
   • NickS 6.1

     28 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

     lolwut?

     Another nail in the coffin of marriage.

     lolwut?

     Because marital rape and other abuse, such as forced marriages so totes was never an issue evers.

     Oh, and Pliger’s full of shit, for Manning’s in the poo for treason alone (which the American left has always been iffy on critically dealing with).
     • kiwi_prometheus 6.1.1

       28 August 2012 at 8:09 pm

       Exposing your governments war crimes and propaganda makes you a traitor does it?

       You and your war crim mates Obama, Bush etc are the real traitors, NickS – of democracy
       • McFlock 6.1.1.1

         28 August 2012 at 8:25 pm

         How is marriage equality another “nail in the coffin of marriage”?
       • NickS 6.1.1.2

         28 August 2012 at 8:37 pm

         Fuck you’re stupid.

         Re-read it shit-for-brains, then think about this thing called “context”, which you’ve conveniently skipped over to try and make a point. Where there was none.

         (Hint: the stuff in brackets in my above post provide a hint o thinking impaired one.)
   • Tracey 6.2

     28 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

     Actually marriage has been “reduced” for centuries by heterosexual men so it’s a bit late to blame the Kardashians. It’s not about man-hating, feminist-hating, gay-hating or whatever rose coloured dream you or anyone dream of, it’s about treating people with respect. Marriage is a legal license, it’s only when performed in a church it takes on a spiritual or whatever realm, and THAT is untouched by the proposed law change. It’s about a law which says we regard each and every of our citizens as equal and deserving of respect, and we will only act against them, overtly or covertly when they break our laws. I can recall the days taxpayer money was wasted on police staking out toilets and pretending to be gay men to trap gay men…
     • Populuxe1 6.2.1

       29 August 2012 at 12:01 am

       Yep, pretty sure Henry VIII got in on the act LONG before the Kardashians (which I think were aliens from Deep Space 9)…..
7. Fortran 7

   28 August 2012 at 2:19 pm

   Support for a first reading does not consitute a final conclusion.
   It appears that many MP’s will support the first reading, but may waver as the bill goes on.
   Not unusual though.
   “Until the fat lady sings the party is not over”.
8. NickS 8

   28 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

   Heh: http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/banks-vote-gay-marriage-bill-5049930

   Oh, and Basset’s probably talking out of his arsehole as per usual, although it is true that refusal to provide service (at Hotels etc) on the basis of homosexuality would be in breach of the Human Rights Act.
9. Rusty Shackleford 9

   28 August 2012 at 3:31 pm

   Will this bill repeal the law that prevents certain people from getting married, or will it simply pile on another layer of legislation? So many of the problems we have come from attempts to codify certain ways of life at a certain point in time or from attempts to legislate away perceived problems.

   If this bill is simply another layer of legislation, it isn’t going to really solve that much.
   • McFlock 9.1

     28 August 2012 at 4:27 pm

     It amends the interpretation section in the marriage act to explicitly remove bias against sexual orientation or gender identity when defining “marriage”.
        
     About as simple as it can get.
          
     You might want to have looked  that one up yourself.
10. tracey 10

    28 August 2012 at 3:56 pm

    If i hadto choose between tge hrc legal view on churches being forced to marry gay folk and mr bassetts i would choose the hrc.

    I dont know a single gay person who would want to be married by a minister who doesnt want to marry them. Yet again mckroskie compares homosexual marriage to incest, now wheres tge church outcry at that?
11. millsy 11

    28 August 2012 at 8:32 pm

    Those who vote against Wall’s bill have no right to go on about ‘Nanny State’ from then on in.

    Having the state dictate how people should form intimate relationships and who with is pretty ‘nanny statist’ IMO. Honestly, what is it about consenting adults that infuriate so many people? Jealousy perhaps?
    • Tim G 11.1

      29 August 2012 at 1:56 am

      Actually I would argue that those that seek special protections from the State on the basis of their marital status are the Statists.

      A Nanny State (which incidentally I am all in favour of) would be attempting to monitor as much as possible the intimate relationships between its subjects.

      True libertarians (which incidentally I despise) would be those that don’t recognize the State’s recognition of their relationship. They have no use for gay marriage or any other kind of marriage because it is not the State’s business (in their view).
12. Clint Heine 12

    29 August 2012 at 3:24 am

    And about bloody time. This campaign has opened my eyes to the rather sizable split on the right over marriage equality. The christian conservative side will wax lyrically for hours (and hours) about how marriage is over and their rights to have a traditional marriage will be eliminated by allowing those evil gays the same rights as you and me.
    I never knew I associated with as many bigots and haters until this debate started, which made it easy for me to disassociate with them too!

    I know I am not the most popular kid on the block here, but why are we even debating about giving gay people the same rights as us? In this day and time we are mature enough to know that love is love and if any gay couple want to get married then it’s their choice.
    • Tracey 12.1

      29 August 2012 at 9:06 am

      while the PM makes jokes about child poverty…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS