Civil Unions etc
November 26th, 2004 at 3:27 pm by David FarrarWell the Civil Unions debate is heating up again.
I was one of the many who paid for and signed the advert last Sunday. I was on the left hand column near the bottom. I respect that not everyone sees the bill as a good thing, but I see it as a step forward, not a step back.
No Right Turn has a useful list of swinging MPs on the issue. I know of at least one MP who voted against at first reading who will vote for at the next reading. But to counter that Stephen Franks looks set to reverse his initial vote in favour.
A group of “committed Christians” have set up an anti CUB website. These people are not actually against just CUBs but same sex relationships fullstop. They seem to want gay relationships made illegal again. Read them and weep.
However I do agree with Stephen Franks that Jacquie Grant should be removed from the Human Rights Review Tribunal after she e-mailed the above group to say “Rest assured you will be taken to task at every opportunity for hate crime”. This is a direct threat related to her role on that body. It is inexcusable, no matter how strongly you loathe the views of the group quoted.
And this indicates exactly why one should not have laws to ban “hate speech”.
No tag for this post.
November 26th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
I am sick of MPs exercising so called conscience votes. They should vote in accord with what they know to be the wishes of the people they represent or at the very least in accord with the mainstream views of their electoral committees, and yes I am a christian and regard the bill as an attack on christian values.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
Not all Christians oppose the bill – Alan Jamieson (http://www.central.org.nz/Civil%20Union%20bill.htm) gave a speech which is worthy of reading on why he supports it.
Should conscience votes be replaced by referendum? (If only they weren’t so costly and were binding.)
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 10:20 pm
So, who’s the MP? Do tell…
(Unfortunately I don’t really know enough to do the numbers in advance
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 10:49 pm
Christians can still have their own values – just leave me out of your dogma.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 11:02 pm
And vice versa. To put it bluntly, one does not have to be christian to know that putting one’s tongue and other bodily parts in another man’s anus, and then expecting the health establishment to be there to do the cleaning up, is not conducive to the health or wealth of the society (or the species).
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 12:15 am
Then you should be advocating the privitisation of healthcare, if that’s the case for your opposition to homosexuality.
A philosophical base that requires other people adhering to your personal values and bigotry is incompatable with a free society.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 9:35 am
‘one does not have to be christian to know that putting one’s tongue and other bodily parts in another man’s anus . . .’
And another blow is struck for the theory that many homophobes are repressed homosexuals . . . I find it unlikely that any straight guy would be so weirdly obsessive about the mechanics of gay sex.
Of course, anal sex and STD’s aren’t limited to homosexuals, so the broader aspects of your argument support a ban on all sexual activity.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 9:35 am
I thought Christians were supposed to be accepting of others, such as Jesus was with his acceptance of tax collectors and other social misfits. Denying the right for people to be able to do have a relationship with whomever they choose is far from being accepting.
Vote:In reality this bill will make life a whole lot easier for a whole sector of society with no cost to you or I. Makes a change from everything else the government does.
November 27th, 2004 at 10:12 am
Sadly, I don’t think Stephen will be the only MP to withdraw support for the full bill. I believe a number will support the rights based bill but dump the actual civil unions bill. I will be so pleased to be wrong and to see the legislation pass.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
It would be a pity if one of the last actions of the self-proclaimed liberal party would be to illiberally contribute to the demise of the civil unions bill.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 8:30 pm
Misusing statistics?
I prefer to be non-political (certainly in public, anyway, and almost so privately) and I also prefer to be able to call myself politically inactive, but I also believe that I can stay neutral when coming across some weird uses…
Vote:November 28th, 2004 at 10:07 pm
David when was it that gay relationships were illegal?
Vote:November 28th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
Robin absolute rubbish. Hoards of tax payer funded employees spend my money and yours agitating against cigarette smoking and obesity and other health related lifestyle choices without being told to direct their attention to advocating private health provision. If LBW wants to advocate the elimination or reduction of anal activities on the grounds of publicly funded health expenditure he should be debated on the merits of his argument not directed to higher context matters that have no chance of succeeding in this country.
Dim, those with an unhealthy fixation on the oral habits of others (smoking and eating and alcohol consumption) are not subjected to discussions on their oral fixations. Perhaps they need a good blowjob. Or maybe their husbands won’t go down on them and they’re actually consumed with self loathing for their stinky genitals. Or maybe those boys really want to get a big cock in their own mouth, and are actually themselves repressed homosexuals, so consumed with their own unfulfilled oral eagerness that they vent their rage against those happily stuffing phallic substitutes into their own mouths.
Gee its so easy to be an amateur Freudian. Almost any fucking idiot can do it.
Vote:November 28th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
Gordon – as consensual sex between two men was illegal, effectively them having a relationship was illegal.
Yes in theory they could have a wonderful platonic relationship, but frankly I don’t think you can consider that a relationship.
Vote:November 28th, 2004 at 11:55 pm
So your position is that without sex or state sanctioned sex, there is no relationship? What about celibates, married men after ten years of marriage, elderly chaste ‘sisters’ of the non lipstick-lesbian style, the 17 year old bonking a 15 year old, homosexual men choosing to flout the law against anal sex. How intolerant of you to deny that these are legitimate relationships just because there is no sex or the government says it is illegal.
As best I know the NZ government has never criminalised homosexual relationships, although they have criminalised certain sexual acts (and indeed continue to do so).
Or are you just tossing out ‘gay relationships were illegal’ as shorthand for ‘anal sex was once illegal and a person’s sexual orientation provided no statutory protection from discrimination’.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 9:04 am
If the law prevents you from havign sex as part of the relationship, yeah I don’t think it is much of a relationship.
If you choose to stop sleeping with your wife, that is your choice.
And the pre 1986 law actually was aimed at activities between two men. Not only was sodomy illegal, but so was “indecency between males” and “Keeping place of resort for homosexual acts”
Vote: