Will the votes be there?
November 30th, 2004 at 11:10 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald have done some numbers on the Civil Union Bill.
The first reading got 66 votes. You need 61 votes to pass. It looks like Stephen Franks, Gerry Eckhoff and Brian Donnelly will vote against (so much for ACT being the liberal party) so that reduces it to 63.
There are four others who may drop their support, and if they do so it only has 59 votes. But in that case two Labour MPs (Mackey and Laban) will vote for it to save it, even if personally uncommitted.
If that happens then it passes 61 votes to 58 with Ashraf Choudhary abstaining again!
I hope though that the four waverers do stay with it which will keep it at 65 votes in favour.
No tag for this post.
November 30th, 2004 at 12:37 pm
Heather Roy is definitely voting in favour and just emailed me to say so. The Herald got it wrong.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
That is good. Heather is one of my favourite MPs, and remains so now!
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
I’m starting to wonder how accurate the Herald’s count really was, actually.
OTOH, I heard Tariana Turia on bFM earlier. What a shocker. In the space of a few minutes she went from:
(a) The bill is not necessary
(b) There should be a referendum instead
(c) It should be full marriage or nothing (but she refused to say whether she would vote for same-sex marriage)
She also claimed the the majority of the same-sex couples who had lobbied her office were against civil unions, and seemed to say some odd thing about lesbians. She also said that in her view spouses weren’t next of kin because they didn’t have “the genealogy”. Jeez …
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 30th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
RB, bloodline is very important to many Maori. Similar to the the thoughts of Hitler, Himmler et al back in the 40s. By the way, does Choudhry ever vote for anything?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 8:32 pm
Why has this bill become a gay rights issue? Why do gays imagine that their rights are trespassed against by different treatment on this issue? Different treatment does not automatically entail discrimination. If you think it does, then I draw attention to the example of children, who can’t marry yet they’re not discriminated against. Even recognising that all adults have equal rights, clearly there are differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. For example, the purpose of marriage in society is procreation. That’s fundamental. Differences are there, no matter how much you try to pretend they’re not.
So what on earth is wrong with keeping it different, indeed celebrating the differences? Why do the socially-condoned long term relationship arrangements between gays and straights need to be in any way legally identical?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:46 pm
Has Brian Donnelly decamped to ACT?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
Reid – because civil rights shouldn’t be decided by your sexuality.
David – Ashraf is voting in favour of the bill.
I see your leader has sold out and is now against. Very disappointing indeed.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:13 pm
Oh thank you very much Don Brash
Vote:The great Liberal of our time has now traded in his ideology to vote with the other conservatives of the National party. That is ideologically bankrupt.
November 30th, 2004 at 11:40 pm
Reid – if the purpose of marriage is procreation should infertile couples be banned from marrying?
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 8:07 am
Poor old Don, the fundi’s are starting to bite into National but that still leaves Act for us liberals.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 3:46 pm
Reid –
Um, because not every gay man and lesbian wants to be the freakshow on the margins of life’s circus? The procreation argument is totally fatuous now since failure to pop a sprog is no longer ground for divorce, or a defence if you murder your wife. And I can’t remember when New Zealand law required compulsory fertility testing.
If you’re interested in reading the conservative/classical liberal arguments for same-sex marriage lay hands on the reader on the subject edited by Andrew Sullivan. Comprehensive and balanced survery of the whole debate.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 4:42 pm
I am against this bill. I was delighted when Labourite Mrs J Mackey came out strongly against it.She was then slammed down by Helen Clark who left her in no doubt that unless she re-aligned her conscience there was a black mark against her.She’s now decided that the grace of her leader is more important than adherence to her principles..I don’t know much about Muslims , but from the voting record of Ashraf Choudhary it seem safe to assume they support Prostitution and homosexuality.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 5:04 pm
I do feel somewhat sorry for Ashraf – As the only Muslim MP, he has to cope with intense extra pressure from the Muslim community to be their representative, when that wasn’t what he was elected for.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 9:20 pm
i think you will find Baxter that by your analogy in fact Muslims would abstain from prostitution
i have been really surprised at the way some MPs are voting – particularly Brash, Coddington and Prebble (all of whom I have emailed)
Vote: