Over at No Right Turn and under the heading NZ First comes out for bigotry, Idiot/Savant blogs:
NZ First has announced that it wants a referendum on marriage equality, and so will be opposing Louisa Wall's bill.This is probably a fair reflection of their elderly supporters' bigotry. At the same time, its deeply worrying, in that they think that matters of fundamental rights should be subject to a popular vote. Though somehow, I suspect they'd be less keen if it was their fundamental rights (e.g. to vote, to enjoy equal treatment under the law, or to live) in question.Referenda are generally a good idea. But not where people's fundamental rights are concerned. People shouldn't be able to vote to have other people killed. And they shouldn't be able to vote to deny them full citizenship.
Now regular readers will know that we hold little truck for NZ First and for Winston Peters. But let's just back up the truck a little; doesn't NZ First and don't the NZ First MP's have the right to vote as they please on Louisa Wall's Bill?
When we commented on Friday about the drawing of the Bill from the Members' Ballot, we noted this:
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.
And in the comments to that post, Green Party activist bsprout added this thought (with our emphasis added):
bsprout said...
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.
July 27, 2012 9:04 AM
So we're wondering who the real bigots are; the NZ First MP's and others who oppose Louisa Wall's Bill, or Idiot/Savant and his ilk, who are demanding that we accept their point of view, and abusing those who dare to oppose them?
8 comments:
Well first, what is the definition of "Bigot"?
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
On that basis it is idiot/savant who is therefore the bigot. Because NZ First are not being intolerant of those who differ with them, they are just stating their view. Where as idiot/savant is showing that they are being the bigot by being intolerant of the views of others.
Bigotry!
"Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Oh, Lordy - what a topic to discuss on this blog!
I am flattered that you have quoted me in your post, KS, but I feel I should also respectfully present my own view on marriage equality.
It takes time for any society to change long held views and cultural perspectives. I believe that it is often very difficult for those who are in a majority to appreciate the perspectives of those in a minority. For a society to remain stable the most expedient way of managing this is through majority acceptance of laws and regulations and this defines the democratic system. It is also very easy for the culture and views of the majority to be considered "normal" but that normality is always contextualised by to the societal norms of the time.
We have shifted hugely over time in what is considered "normal" and when giving women the vote was once considered radical, it is now accepted that to do otherwise would be radical and unacceptable. It is the same as giving equal rights to our gay community. While they are in the minority they are not lesser beings to the hetrosexual majority, they are just different.
I also believe that being homosexual is not black and white and that one's sexuality exists on a continuum and that the ability to be attracted or to love a member of the same or opposite sex exists in everyone to a larger or lesser degree. Sexuality is an innate thing that can't be artificially created and attempts at arbitrary sexual reassignment is proof of this (as NZr Jim Money unfortunately discovered). One's sexuality does not now constitute a criminal offense as it once did and if it was we would lose many of our most effective members of parliament and community leaders.
To discriminate against the gay community because of their sexuality is just the same as discriminating against women because they are female and blacks because of their skin colour.
I believe marriage being only between a man and a woman is denying many the right to have their caring and enduring relationships with another adult to be recognized as normal. The institution of marriage is widely regarded by Christians and non-Christians as something more than a mere legal agreement and to deny this recognition to our gay community is a human right and an issue of social justice.
This is my strongly held view and while I know that others will have opposing views, I will not be able to have them listen to mine if I don't respect their right to hold theirs.
I know that your views are heavily influenced by tour Christian beliefs, KS, but I am also aware that this is a contentious issue in many churches, too.
"they are not lesser beings....they are just different"
So why does their relationship have to be described by the same word? There is no discrimination as far as their legal rights (other than that adoption issue), and I really can't stomach legislation as an instruction to society as to how they're supposed to think.
James, I guess society as a whole has different definitions for the institution of marriage. There could be an argument that this particular institution is not owned by any one group or religious belief. Marriage also has legal status and therefore if a particular group within our society is not allowed access to legally recognized legal institution, it needs a legal response.
It also needed legal action to determine that being gay wasn't illegal to shift how gay people were regarded by others.
It was great to go through your post. Thanks for sharing here. Keep up the good work.
It was great to go through your post. Thanks for sharing here. Keep up the good work.
The way for each side to win this battle is to take on the handful of MPs who are not 100% sure - Heather Roy was persuaded at the last minute to vote for the Prostitution Reform bill and it was able to pass on her vote.
Concentrating on the "family haters" or the "bigots" in this debate is good sport but not going to resolve anything.
Post a Comment