Technical reasons don’t apply here -if there is a problem with the drafting that can always be fixed at the select committee stage.

You are right that Chris Findlayson is not the only National MP to say they support heterosexual marriage then vote against it. Pansy Wong said (during the debate on the Civil Unions Bill) she supported the traditional view of marriage being solely between a man and woman.

It turns out that she also was either lying or has changed her mind because she also voted against the recent marriage bill.

Why is it that Pansy Wong and Chris Findlayson did not say before the election that they do not support marriage being exclusively heterosexual?
If they had done so they would appear more consistent and/or honest than they look now.

The sooner all this gay lib shit is put back in the closet where it belongs ,the better for all god fearing family folk.

More to the point you are off the planet if you think failing to vote for Copeland’s bill means you automatically don’t support marriage as being reserved for heterosexuals. A number of MPs who voted against Copeland’s bill said they dodn’t support gay marriage.

I recall that before the election Ewen McQueen warned voters that the National Party in general and Chris Findlayson in particular lacked committment to marriage as a heterosexual institution. This claim was denied by David Farrar.

Would it be asking too much to ask for David P Farrar to apologise to McQueen and admit that McQueen was right to question Findlayson’s committment to marriage as a heterosexual institution?

Dirty filthy scum, would be more appropriate!

As to everything else in your comment, I may write a series of posts on this, as time permits.

Lucyna claims to read a lot of history books (I’d love to know the names of some of ‘em). I read a lot of history too – and I’m a firm believer in the ‘cock-up’ theory of history – it beats the conspiracy theory school any day.

And this case is no exception: Lucyna and the link she cites claims that covert legions of marxists have a secret plot to destroy marriage, and symptoms like gay marriage, single parents and a high divorce rate are symptoms of this.

So let’s ask ourselves an obvious question: why didn’t feminism happen in the Soviet Union, or Maoist China, or even back in Europe during the first socialist uprisings of the 18th century (Chartists, Paris Commune ect)? And why DID it happen in the United States and the other nations of the west which were virulently anti-Marxist?

The answer, of course, is wealth and technology. Biological technologies made it possible for women to make choices about pregnancy and fertility, automation made it possible to clean a house and cook a meal in minutes instead of hours, changes in wealth production meant that the majority of work was intellectual and took place in offices instead of physical labour that took place on farms and factories. Once it because possible for women to do the same work as men they demanded to be compensated the same as men.

Once women are able to earn the same income as men the dynamic of traditional marriage – the women looks after the house (which now only takes a few hours a week and (to many) is a lot less appealing than almost every other job out there) is obviously going to change. A women who leaves her husband at the age of thirty isn’t going to have to turn to prostitution or starve to death.

Now, all of this is pretty fucking obvious to anyone who thinks about the rise of feminism for more than a few seconds. Does any of the reds-under-the-bed brigade have a better explaination as to why women in the west are emancipated, but women in countries like Communist China aren’t?

If you see marraige in trouble look for the log in your own eye before removing the mote in your brother’s eye.

Nor can you really blame the state. Easy divorce only makes divorce easy. It doesn’t force people to divorce. Not arresting people for adultery doesn’t force people to commit adultery. Removing state force from straight relationships only makes clear what was already in the hearts of the people involved.

If there is one thing that gay people can’t be blamed for it is the state of straight marriages.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00028XKKM/104-4514975-5812719

And in our famulies opinion ” this is now a SICK world we live in”

Now they have been asked to make this matter clear and shown for the liars they are.

Matt

-1 They are animals

-2 They are confused”

I’m impressed you managed to figure the first one out. How long did that take you? As for the latter, I can assume you subjected that to the same rigorous chain of deduction that lead you to the former..?

Or you’re just making unsupported assertions again, which just seems more likely. Do you actually have a rational basis for anything you say?

That’s nothing, my guinea pigs are already working on their float for next year’s Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras.
I bet you don’t even let your dog watch Queer Eye, you miserable bugger.

The only conclusion to my observations is

-1 They are animals

-2 They are confused

I had hoped that people were different but I’m losing that hope reading this blog.

I don’t think you’re quite ready for Camille Paglia, so you can run off and read all about Ayn Rand

Wow, that’s an amazingly muddled piece of thinking even by local standards. Well done! Not only have you, in your own question, pointed out the absurdity of your position but you’ve also attempted to pose that absurdity as proof of some kind of evil conspiracy!

I’m impressed.