The 50th Parliament of New Zealand will soon consider the issue of same-sex marriage. Labour MP Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was yesterday drawn from the Members' Bill ballot, and will have its First Reading, possibly as early as late August.
There is an inevitability about same-sex marriage being legalised, but that does not mean that the New Zealand Parliament ought necessarily fast-track this piece of legislation, which is bound to be contentious.
Where do we stand on the issue? Those who accuse us of being a fundy Christian (a term that is bandied about so much that its meaning has been blurred) may be surprised to learn that we support this Bill passing a First Reading, and going to a select committee for an extensice period of consultation and submissions. The select committee will have the opportunity to canvass the views of a wide range of New Zealanders, not just those with a vested interest who will doubtless flood the committee with submissions.
Beyond that however, Parliament should be guided by the views of the people whom the MP's are elected to represent. And just because the issue of same-sex marriage is the current "hot topic", it does not follow that Parliament should rush this piece of legislation through without an appropriate level of scrutiny.
The lobby pushing for same-sex marriage yesterday was elated that Louisa Wall's Bill had been drawn. But we found some of the comments in social media just a little disturbing. The Parliament rarely votes according to the conscience of MP's. The Oxford Dictionary defines conscience thus:
Definition of consciencenoun
There were numerous suggestions yesterday from same-sex marriage activists and their supporters that those who oppose this Bill are being offensive or bigoted. We totally reject that view. We are a free and fair society, and the right to hold a certain belief is inherent to our democracy. MP's such as Damian O'Connor and Ross Robertson (Labour), Bill English and Tim Macindoe (National), Hone Harawira (Mana) and Richard Prosser and Asenati Lole-Taylor (NZ First) are among those who have indicated tht they oppose same-sex marriage for various reasons. They are perfectly entitled to hold those views without bullying, intimidation or name-calling.
19 comments:
"...we support this Bill passing a First Reading, and going to a select committee for an extensive period of consultation and submissions."
That's what should happen to any bill like this, and allow parliament to thoroughly examine the nature and appropriateness of the bill.
Then MPS should consult widely with their constituents and vote accordingly.
I support the propsed bill in general, but above that I support proper parliamentary process.
I agree, KS, good process generally ensures good decisions and you can't expect people to shift ground or listen to your point of view if you belittle theirs. I am pleased that the PM has made this a conscience vote for National too.
Why?
We are talking about a word. Nothing more.
Those who want to call their (or others') union "marriage" will do so, those who don't won't.
Until same-sex marriage becomes compulsary (within a year of the next communistic government probably) it simply does not matter what we call it - it has the same legal status.
Why not simply scrap the marriage act and get the state out of the marriage game completely.
If you want a state-recognised relationship, get a civil union. If you want a "marriage" pay the wizard of your choice to mutter their incantations over your head.
This is plainly a ruse to enable gay adoption, which would be a tougher proposition to win a public debate on, but that's the debate that should be had.
James, this video is worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
James is correct here. The state has no business determining the meaning of marriage anyway, so the debate on gay marriage is irrelevant. The only difference between civil union and marriage in the states eyes is the right of adoption. Do New Zealanders really want to allow a couple of homosexual men, albeit in a long-term relationship, to adopt an 8-year-old boy? I don't know how many of us are ready to go there.
Yes sprout, I've seen that speech before. I don't know where I stand on gay adoption, I just think that it's a debate that should be had openly not trojan-horsed via gay "marriage".
@Macdoctor - that example is one side of the issue, but on the other hand a same-sex partner of someone with natural children of their own, is currently unable to become the legal adoptive parent of those children.
Keeping Stock has not said what his own view on same-sex marriage is.
Where do we stand on the issue? Those who accuse us of being a fundy Christian (a term that is bandied about so much that its meaning has been blurred) may be surprised to learn that we support this Bill passing a First Reading, and going to a select committee for an extensice period of consultation and submissions. The select committee will have the opportunity to canvass the views of a wide range of New Zealanders, not just those with a vested interest who will doubtless flood the committee with submissions.
Beyond that however, Parliament should be guided by the views of the people whom the MP's are elected to represent. And just because the issue of same-sex marriage is the current "hot topic", it does not follow that Parliament should rush this piece of legislation through without an appropriate level of scrutiny.
I would have thought that the above would have given a good indication kEEs.
No, it doesn't. What it says is you support the Bill passing a First Reading, and going to a select committee for an extensice period of consultation and submissions.
What you don't say is whether you agree with same-sex marriage.
Do you? It's a simple question.
Do you?
@james
but on the other hand a same-sex partner of someone with natural children of their own, is currently unable to become the legal adoptive parent of those children.
Granted. However, this can be rectified by some fairly simple changes to the Civil Unions bill, thus avoiding what has already become an acrimonious debate on marriage laws. It would also avoid the state redefining "marriage" to suit itself, thus avoiding the potential spread to polygamous and polyamourous relationships, amongst others.
Here's your answer kEEs; I am neither for or against at present, which is why I am happy for there to be a public debate. I have a close family member who "came out" over 40 years ago but has no desire to marry. I have numerous friends who are friends first and gay second.
On the other hand, I have a Christian faith which teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. My faith is central to my existence.
I am open to arguments from both sides of the fence. I suspect that despite polls suggesting that two thirds of NZ'ers support gay marriage, I am far from unique, and quite possibly representative of the majority.
I will say this though; I will be far less tolerant to those who demand that I adhere to their view, and who abuse me when I choose not to. I am of better than average intelligence, and perfectly capable of making up my own mind. And like the MP's who will ultimately decide this issue, I too have a conscience.
Enough of me; where do YOU stand KEEs?
So, KS, you aren't for same-sex marriage.
I expected as much.
I am strongly in favour of same-sex marriage. I don't fence-sit and prevaricate as you do, over important issues. I have the courage of my convictions.
I too have the courage of my convictions kEES, and find your suggestion that I do not both offensive and unsurprising. People such as yourself who badger and bully will ultimately do your cause more harm than good.
This debate is likely to become nasty and personal, and sadly those who support gay marriage will be responsible for a fair percentage of the nastiness.
And kEEs; perhaps you should scroll up the page and read Green Party activist bsprout's very sensible contribution from 9.04am yesterday; I know whose argument I would be more likely to listen to.
I had only one aim, Keeping Stock and that was to find out if you support same-sex marriage. You do not, you reveal. Nothing nasty about that. Just a question to establish a fact - Keeping Stock does not support same-sex marriage. Why are you so disturbed by being asked a straight question? And why would you direct me to bsprout's comment? What do I care?
Why not James' or Pete's?
Queer!
Tell me this kEEs; are you the gentleman who secretly recorded various National MP's at the 2008 conference?
You seem to have a Very high opinion of yourself. You bang on about having proved how I do not support same-sex marriage. But deviously, you neglect to mention that you have also proved that I do not OPPOSE same-sex marriage; I am genuinely undecided.
And with regard to bsprout's comment, the bit I wanted to commend to you was his comment about finding it easier to win support when you don't belittle those who have a different opinion to you. I would urge you to take bsprout's words on board.
Was the person who recorded Bill English and Lockwood Smith talking about the need to 'swallow dead rats (or was it fish?) in order to win the election, a gentleman as you say, Keeping Stock? I thought he was an opportunistic (and clever) Labour Party activist who realised (and proved with his recordings) that the National Party planned to trick the public into trusting them and into voting for them. I admire his audacity!
Now, to your claims - I am merely establishing one true fact; that you don't support same-sex marriage. You don't. You said so yourself. No blame, Keeping Stock. You are entitled to your view. I just wanted to make clear what that was. I support same-sex marriages. You don't. Don't feel anxious. It's best to be truthful.
Again with the "bsprout" adoration - do you want to marry him?
I'm not trying to "win support" here. I simply wanted to establish a clear fact.
And I did.
It's precisely that kind of attitude kEEs that will turn people's support away from same-sex marriage. It's positively Guytonesque, and is the worst possible advertisement for what is a cause with a degree of merit.
Post a Comment