Jenny Rowan
October 14th, 2007 at 9:32 pm by David FarrarI am quite puzzled by Lucyna’s post at NZ Conservative on the election of Jenny Rowan as Kapiti Coast Mayor. She says:
Well, as a voter in the Kapiti Coast District, I can say that I had absolutely no idea Jenny Rowan was an ‘out’ lesbian. Had I known she was a lesbian, I would not have put her down at number 2 on my voting form. As she never campaigned using “vote for me, I’m a lesbian”, I wouldn’t be surprised if many other Kapiti voters also had no idea. I also would not be surprised if she only lasts one term.
Well it is quite correct that Rowan did not campaign on the basis you should vote for her as she is a lesbian. To quote the Herald on Sunday:
Openly lesbian, though determinedly not campaigning as such _ “it’s got nothing to do with me being mayor”
Now I think this is a commendable attitude. I didn’t vote for Kerry Prendergast because she is heterosexual, and I think it is great to have the sort of society where a candidate’s sexual orientation is about as interesting as their hair colour.
Not that it would have been hard for Lucyna to find out Jenny was a lesbian. A quick Google search on her name has a reference in the top five hits. Also on Jenny’s website she mentions her partner is Jools.
So while she did not campaign on it, she certainly didn’t hide it. What more does Lucyna want? For her to warn people with a flashing homo alert badge at public meetings? Does she really believe that her sexual orientation alone is enough to get her thrown out of office after one term – regardless of how well she performs the job?
Later on, Lucyna makes a comment that:
Anyone who is sexually depraved is less likely to be able to make decisions for the good of all.
Now Lucyna obviously believes this and I don’t think there is much point debating a belief like that, but really to apply it as a litmus test where you won’t consider them at all, regardless of all the other qualities they may have? Isn’t that rather umm
extreme?
Related posts:
- Jenny doing well
- Rowan Atkinson on “insulting” free speech
- Should the census include sexual orientation?
- UN votes that executing gays is okay
October 14th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“Now I think this is a commendable attitude. I didn’t vote for Kerry Prendergast because she is heterosexual, and I think it is great to have the sort of society where a candidate’s sexual orientation is about as interesting as their hair colour.”
Fair comment DPF. However, why did you tell us one of your blog moderators was gay? Perhaps it is important to you but why did we need to know? I note you did not tell us their hair colour.
[DPF: It's not important to me. My selections had nothing to do with sexual orientation. I just found it amusing that I managed to by coincidence be politically correct enough to have both a gay and a lesbian moderator, which would surely be approved by the Rainbow Branch of Labour or something. And I assure you if any of the moderators had told me they were red heads I would have mentioned that also. Red heads are by nature fiery and explosive!]
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“Sexually depraved” is strong language. Since when did a politician’s sex life have an impact on their ability to hold or conduct the business of elected office?
The only reason why politics and sex usually wind up together is because of denial, exposure, or hypocrisy. There is no other reason it should be newsworthy.
If Jenny does a good job as mayor, and there is no reason to suggest that she wont, she should be re-elected. Maybe Lucyna should research her votes more carefully in the future if she continues to remain bigoted…
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Policy Parrot:
Since when did a politician’s sex life have an impact on their ability to hold or conduct the business of elected office?
David Benson-Pope comes to mind. As you say: denial, (indecent) exposure or hypocrisy.
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“However, why did you tell us one of your blog moderators was gay? Perhaps it is important to you but why did we need to know? I note you did not tell us their hair color”
Well spotted radvad. This is an example of how some socially liberal people need to demonstrate their “sexual orientation neutral” virtue.
However I must say , Lucyna is really starting to go, as we say, OTT.
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
she’s a right case that lucyna..
for one who seems to spend a large part of her life reliving/bemoaniing the historical injustices done to polish catholics..
she’s quite the dab hand with the (irrational) bigotry herself..
homophobes are sad/sick/neurotic fucks..
and of course..by there very bigotry..
proving themselves to be a thick as pigshit..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Oh, I’m more impatient with comments like this:
OK, I get the point ZenTiger is trying to make but here’s what really gets up my nose. You mention you’re gay, and somehow you’re flaunting your depraved lifestyle and shoving it in everyone’s face.
But when nice ‘normal’ candidates have to remind voters at every opportunity how long they’ve been married and how many sprogs they’ve popped (which is relevant to their competence to hold elected office, how exactly?), and make sure the poor suckers are shoe horned into every photo op?
Oh, nothing wrong with that at all…
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
radvad wrote:
Hear hear! I have nothing against heterosexuals (or ‘straights’ as I understand they like to be called, nowadays) like DPF and Lucyna; some of my best friends and most valued co-workers are heterosexuals; I’m very tolerant of your lifestyle choices.
But do you people just have to keep banging on about it? Really, you’re trying my patience by constantly rubbing my nose in your different-sex partners, children, what goes on in straight bars and other nonsense.
Clean up your act, DPF!
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Lucyna is a depraved fundy. Puzzlement over.
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Oh for fucks sake what a load crap if this lady is gay that is her business , I would respect her as a person. If she was on our local council I would hope that she would try her best for the district people.
Vote:If she wants to stand for national office the story is different. Because she votes on laws that we all must live under then I would question her sexuallity. I have a problem with gay marriage but quite happy with civil unions as long as it is recorded as such,
October 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
“David Benson-Pope comes to mind. As you say: denial, (indecent) exposure or hypocrisy.”
Where exactly was the hypocrisy? Did he at some point say that BDSM is a depraved and morally repugnant pass-time?
CraigR
“But do you people just have to keep banging on about it? Really, you’re trying my patience by constantly rubbing my nose in your different-sex partners, children, what goes on in straight bars and other nonsense. Clean up your act, DPF!”
Bloody brilliant!
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
But there is something dodgy about her attitude. Something not square. Before the election her lesbianism was a background issue, so far so good. After the election she is out and proud saying she is the first lesbian to be elected Mayor and so on. That I do criticise and all the homophobia she is copping now will deservedly haunt her. She now wants to make her sexuality an issue – first out and proud lesbian a Mayor and so on. Except she was not all that out and proud BEFORE the election. I predict because of this deceit she will be a one term Mayor. I bet her politics are leftist which does it for me.
[DPF: I can almost guarantee that the media have focused on the sexual orientation, not the Mayor. I've seen them do it with other gay politicians who don't want heir sexuality to be a big issue, yet after the election it is the point of difference media need for a story]
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I think this is out of context.
Lucyna is a Catholic (I think) and the Catholic Church has very precise advice on what a Catholic should do when voting/supoprting a public official. Some Catholics choose to ignore this advice (which is what it is) and others follow it to the word.
Eg – Catholics are advised to be careful about voting for a politician who advocates abortion, but does not object to Catholics voting for politicians who have had an abortion. Note the (subtle) difference.
I’m sure the Catholic Church would have no qualm about Catholics voting for a gay politician, but would probably have concerns about Catholics voting for a politician who advocated homosexuality – there is a difference. And Ms Rowan appears to be the later (I will conceed to be corrected however).
The Catholic Church, in my view, is not anti-gay. Rather it reserves its opinion on homosexuality and calls for them to not to have sex (as it does for those hetrosexuals outside of marriage).
Also, some people see homosexuality as a moral issue. Not as a sexual issue. I can’t see what’s wrong with Lucyna making her opinion known. On her own blog no less.
Furthermore, I don’t consider her opinion ‘homophobic’.
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“Except she was not all that out and proud BEFORE the election.”
Yes she was. She was absolutely an “out” lesbian. In no way can it be said that she was a closet lesbian in the days before the election – as David points out, her sexuality was publicly accessible information for goodness’ sake.
“A quick Google search on her name has a reference in the top five hits. Also on Jenny’s website she mentions her partner is Jools.”
So she erect billboards everyewhere saying “vote for me, I’m a lesbian”. Why? I’m sure that she wouldn’t write “employ me, I’m queer” on her CV when applying for other jobs as well. Why? Because it has nothing to do with her ability to do the job.
Vote:October 14th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
“I’m sure the Catholic Church would have no qualm about Catholics voting for a gay politician, but would probably have concerns about Catholics voting for a politician who advocated homosexuality – there is a difference. And Ms Rowan appears to be the later (I will conceed to be corrected however).”
So? Freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a basic human right. Gay and lesbian people aren’t required include a disclosure of their sexuality on their CV when applying for a job, regardless of how homophobic the employer may be. The idea that she should have been required to campaign on her sexuality is absolutely absurd.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Roger – you have misunderstood Tim. As i read it we all agree her sexuality was known before the election, but she didn’t promote it as a defining factor. This is good because it should not be relevant as Craig mentioned. However, now she is promoting it by saying how proud she is etc. I beleiev that is the point Tim is making.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am
roger nome – And so is freedom of expression – which is what Lucyna is doing – expressing. I completely agree that homosexuals shouldn’t have to declare their sexuality, however, I think there are people who would object to being ‘decieved’ in an electoral campaign.
For some it’s about morality. That alone may appear absurd to some.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 12:27 am
And for the record, I don’t think that just because someone is gay that they will be ineffective. But there is a difference between being gay and advocating gay issues. Chris Finlayson is a case in point.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Yes, the same freedom one could have in saying “If I’d known so and so was a Jew I wouldn’t have voted for someone with such depraved religious practices” blah blah blah.
It is truly hilarious though that Lucyna thinks she knows the sexual practices of everyone who says nothing about them, assumes that all heterosexual married couples dont swing, don’t enjoy anal sex, don’t do BDSM, don’t cross dress etc etc.
Sanctimonious bitch – how dare she judge people based upon what adulots they love.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 5:28 am
loving ‘adulots’..?
(now that’s wierd..!)
phil9whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 6:56 am
As regular readers of NZConservative know, Lucyna et al basically regard gays and lesbians as some sort of separate species of demonic subhumans (obviously in Craig’s case this is only half true
) so there’s a nice level of irony to find Lucyna voting for one of these untermeschen. How fabulous.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 7:35 am
I support Lucyna. She is absolutely right. Homosexuality is sinful and depraved and she is quite right to point it out. A person’s lifestyle points to their character.
Bill Clinton looked the American public in the eye and said “listen to me, I did not have sex with that woman”. But we know that he lied. His character and his worthiness to be the American president are intertwined.
Once upon a time we used to know this. We understood that a person’s life could not be put into compartments. The private life inevitably spills over into the public life.
American President Theodore Roosevelt put it well when he said, “”No man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character.”
Vote:An Autobiography, 1913
October 15th, 2007 at 8:05 am
‘…vulnerable in his private character’
Why is being homosexual vulnerable in private character?
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“Homosexuality is sinful and depraved and she is quite right to point it out. A person’s lifestyle points to their character. ‘
Christian Heritage must have been a helluva shock to you then, Scott. ANd let’s not forget about all those pols who have committed adultery. Stone the lot of them, I say!
And David :”I think it is great to have the sort of society where a candidate’s sexual orientation is about as interesting as their hair colour.”
I cannot agree. I’ll happily vote for a gay or a lesbian candidate, but I’ll be fucked if I’m ever voting for a ginger!
[DPF: heh heh. That's ginga!]
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 8:44 am
After the election she is politicising her sexuality. She did not before the election. That shift in stance I criticise. She will cope a lot of homophobia taunts for that deceit. She will run this hard right down to the next election. Silly woman is probably a leftie which is bad enough for me. She could have said that her sexuality REMAINS a background issue and where or not she is the first out lesbian mayor is totally irrelevant etc etc. But she wishes to politicise that fact and she will cop it.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Homosexuality is a political thing. Its rare to find a homosexual in public life who isn’t a leftist or a pseudo liberal. Its rare to find one who doesn’t subscribe to the homosexual political agenda, and as a candidate for public office, it is deceitful not to acknowledge that it exists, and to not state whether you subscribe to that agenda or you don’t.
Really, I do not wish any ill will on any homosexual. I wish them happiness in life. The thing that rankles me most is their infiltration of the education system, and their attempts to inculcate pro-homosexual values into the minds of children. One may agree or disagree with the homosexual political agenda, but it is not up to groups of homosexuals to try and brainwash students. This is a matter that should be left in the hands of the children’s parents.
Another thing I regard as important in deciding upon a vote for homosexual politicians is this- So many homosexuals are so often drinkers of the politically correct/ socialist/ Marxist Kool aid, and as such a mindset demands, so many of them have so little regard for the concept of freedom of expression.
Whilst there are definitely some out there who do not subscribe to this political agenda, I think anyone who isn’t heterosexual and standing for public office should be forthcoming enough to state their sexuality if it isn’t heterosexual, so that voters are fully informed, and can make their judgments knowing whether or not that agenda, and the issues that concern me above, are part of that candidate’s framework of political objectives.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
What can you say,,
Martin Luther King said he wanted his kids judged by the content of their character,,
says it all doesn’t it
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
How about waiting to judge the woman until she’s served her term in office, eh? If throughout her term she harps on about her homosexuality as if it was something special, by all means, castigate her then. Until then however, it is about as meaningful to me as your sexuality is and matters not a whit.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Race is a political thing. Its rare to find a negro in public life who isn’t a leftist or a pseudo liberal. Its rare to find one who doesn’t subscribe to the negro political agenda, and as a candidate for public office, it is deceitful not to acknowledge that it exists, and to not state whether you subscribe to that agenda or you don’t.
Really, I do not wish any ill will on any negro. I wish them happiness in life. The thing that rankles me most is their infiltration of the education system, and their attempts to inculcate pro-negro values into the minds of children. One may agree or disagree with the negro political agenda, but it is not up to groups of negroes to try and brainwash students. This is a matter that should be left in the hands of the children’s parents.
Another thing I regard as important in deciding upon a vote for negro politicians is this- So many negroes are so often drinkers of the politically correct/ socialist/ Marxist Kool aid, and as such a mindset demands, so many of them have so little regard for the concept of freedom of expression.
Whilst there are definitely some out there who do not subscribe to this political agenda, I think anyone who isn’t white and standing for public office should be forthcoming enough to state their race if it isn’t white, so that voters are fully informed, and can make their judgments knowing whether or not that agenda, and the issues that concern me above, are part of that candidate’s framework of political objectives.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 10:40 am
And the reason why many homosexuals or negroes flock to the left could well be because of the flak they get from some on the right simply because of how God or Gaia created them.
Vote:Fortunately, not all gays or negroes have been turned off by the right or being seduced by leftist propoganda.
But comments like those from Lucyna are unhelpful to say the least.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Fairfacts: Negroes???
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Tane – read my post above. I’m simply channeling Redbaiter as he would have been half a century ago.
Vote:While I wouldn’t be caught dead predicting the future, I’m willing to bet that the Redbaiters of fifty years hence would be outraged at the suggestion that they’d hold such homophobic attitudes.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
enough rope – na you’re cool, I was addressing Fairfacts, who picked up the word ‘negro’ and used it without blushing. But I guess that’s what you’d expect from a dude whose best mate is called Adolf.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Perhaps I should have used it in quotations
Vote:I was just following on from the post above
It is not a word I use
That case would be the first in many a year.
I apologise if anyone got the wrong impression.
But my point remains that bigotry from some of those on the right towards certain groups, only helps drive them into the arms of the left.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
You’re cool Fairfacts, your point was well made. Tane’s just desparate for something to gnaw on today
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
It’s very easy to understand the logic of the homohaters. If a gay person is open about it they are flaunting it and pushing it in everyone’s face. If they don’ t make a big deal out of it they are hiding it and trying to be deceptive. What’s so hard to understand? Don’t look for logic. This is faith. It has to be.
And certainly heterosexuals are far more moral and the more heterosexual the better. After all look at the person morality of Bill Clinton. What more could you ask for. I mean compare him to that immoral man — oh say, the priest who died giving last rites to the firemen at the foot of the Twin Towers on 9/11. I mean, the man was moral. Would you want a man like him holding public office instead of a heterosexual like Clinton!
I have to wonder if these people actually hear themselves? Are they aware what absurdities they have become?
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
While ‘negro’ is not a term used much any more, it’s not seen to be derogatory, to the best of my knowledge. Maybe it is over time? Hard to keep up with the in-vogue PC words these days. I chuckle over that Extra’s episode where Keith Chegwin uses the term ‘blacks’ but Andy Millman corrects him with ‘it’s black people’.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Hi David,
I’ll answer the two questions you’ve put forward that have not yet been answered by me anywhere else.
Not that it would have been hard for Lucyna to find out Jenny was a lesbian. A quick Google search on her name has a reference in the top five hits. Also on Jenny’s website she mentions her partner is Jools.
Why didn’t I check she was a lesbian? It never occurred to me that she was one. The name “Jools” likewise would not have rung any alarm bells, as it is not a name I am familiar with.
So while she did not campaign on it, she certainly didn’t hide it. What more does Lucyna want? For her to warn people with a flashing homo alert badge at public meetings?
What I would have liked is for this “out” lesbian to at least state that she was a lesbian on her bio in the little booklet that came out with blurbs on each of the candidates. I’ve thrown it out, so I can’t go back to check exactly what each candidate said about themselves, but I do remember mention on several of them of the person being retired, or being married, or having a family. One could even have been a single mother.
But this woman talks about how Kapiti elected an “out” lesbian like it was obvious she was one. That she was elected despite her being a lesbian. However, it was not obvious. I can say that with certainty. And that is why I wrote my post.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
<p>”Its rare to find a negro in public life who isn’t a leftist or a pseudo liberal. “</p>
<p>That’s a lie and you’re a stupid [offensive word removed by Richard (moderator) ].</p>
[Richard (moderator): Offensive language/inflammatory comment. Demerit points being decided]
[DPF: consensus of moderators is 35 demerit points. Calling another commenter a c**t is clearly over the top in terms of vigorous debate]
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I think its a race between Redbaiter and d4j as to who’s going to be the first one banned on Kiwiblog (under the new moderators system).
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“I think its a race between Redbaiter and d4j as to who’s going to be the first one banned on Kiwiblog”
Why worry. Let the leftists have the fucken place. They control everywhere else, they might as well take control of Kiwiblog as well. It was too good too last. Think I need to come here and read the endless halfwitted shit of morons like Nome and his ilk every fucken day?? Forget it. Kiwiblog was different. Now its just another place for leftists to spout their shit unchallenged. Russell Brown will love it.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Lucyna = lunacy
…say no more.
aladin
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Craig Ranapia mentioned that:
Or, indeed, when “nice ‘normal’” candidates who’ve developed a bit of an unfortunate reputation for wearing mascara scramble to have every baby photo from the ultrasounds on published in some fawning women’s mag in order to reassure the plebs that they are, in fact, entirely heterosexual. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Its amazing what you can get away with having a respetability label attached to you.
look at the Catholic church incredible history of darkness and evil in high places yet so highly regarded.
The bible even speaks out against it telling Gods people to flee the city of seven hills,, only one in the world is Rome.
Any one dare to call me sacriligious.
Read your Bible Catholics,, right in Revelations
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hinamanu,
You might want to do a bit more research. The Vatican City, which is in Rome, but not Rome, is on one hill. There are also other cities on seven hills besides Rome. Plus, Revelation could have been referring to ancient Rome, not modern Rome.
For more on this subject, read : Hunting the Whore of Babylon ~ Catholic Answers.
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“Homophobia alive and well on [the Kapiti] Coast” was the headline of a recent letter to the editor written by a couple who criticised the Kapiti Observer Newspaper for publishing an article in which mayoralty candidate Jenny Rowan’s “sexual orientation” was briefly referred to. What the article did not disclose to readers was that this “openly lesbian” candidate and her lesbian partner of 20 years, Jools Joslin, have spent years crusading for the New Zealand Marriage Act to be radically changed so that same-sex couples like themselves can get married. Rowan has helped force the issue of her identification as an “openly lesbian” person and her claimed “gay rights” into a national political debate, at significant cost to the tax-payers through legal aid pay-outs involving High Court and Court of Appeal litigation, and yet now she seeks to downplay the relevance of her “sexual orientation” in the political sphere.
Ms Jenny Rowan and her lesbian supporters (Ms Judith Dale et al. Letters Kapiti Observer 4/10/07) argue that being an “openly lesbian” candidate for mayor of Kapiti Coast is completely irrelevant to the question of her suitability for the job. She and her supporters accuse anyone who dares to make the slightest reference to her “sexual orientation”, as engaging in “homophobia” and blatant bigotry. However, it was ‘News’ Reports from the political lobby group GayNZ.com that has flaunted Ms Rowan’s “sexual orientation” in these terms (“OPENLY gay” See Ref. 1).
In a free society one is entitled to parade one’s OPEN sexual preference for political gain. Why not? Labour gay MPs such Maryan Street, Tim Barnett, Cabinet Minister Hon. Chris Carter, transsexual former MP Georgina Beyer, and others have done it regularly?
For same-sex couples like Rowan and Joslin, who share six children, the Civil Union Act (2005) that established the institution of civil unions for same-sex couples but did not grant the right to marry, was, and still is, a bitter disappointment. “There is a public perception in New Zealand now that lesbian and gay people have equal rights and that’s simply not true,” said 56-year-old Rowan. (Te Waha Nui Online 1/06/07).
Lesbian activist Marilyn Waring, former MP and currently Professor at Auckland University of Technology, agrees: “Gays and lesbians are just another group of people who have not been offered equality and dignity in society.” She has been an outspoken opponent of civil unions, arguing that gays should have pushed for gay marriage rather than accept a second rate option of civil unions. “Equivalence is not equality” she argues, as she seeks to spearhead a fresh attempt to demand marriage “rights” for gays (See Ref. 2).
Like Waring, Rowan and Joslin have been waiting years for same-sex marriage to be legalised. Both Rowan and Joslin were involved in a failed bid to take on the Crown in the High Court over their inability to marry, in the failed 1996 Quilter case. Having lost their case, Rowan and Joslin then took the case to the Court of Appeal, but failed again. Subsequently the persistent plaintiffs forwarded a Communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee seeking a statement that New Zealand is breaching its obligations to Human Rights under various international conventions (Ref. 3). The UN Committee rejected the gay lobbyist’s claims, concluding: “[we] cannot find that by mere refusal to provide for marriage between homosexual couples, the State party [New Zealand] has violated the rights of the authors…” [The Committee is] “… of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of any provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…” (Ref. 4).
Rowan and Joslin finally travelled to Canada last year to have a legal marriage. However this ‘marriage’ is NOT recognised in New Zealand law and the vast majority of New Zealanders want it to stay that way. Marriage has been universally acknowledged since time immemorial as involving the union of a man and a woman.
For More go To:
http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/164/1/
Vote:October 15th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Correction to Above link
For More on “Aggressive Lesbian Plitical Agenda” see:
http://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/homophobia-same-sex-marriage-and-the-aggressive-lesbian-political-agenda/
Vote:October 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I have not noted any difference in ethics in office amongst leaders known for their lack of monogomy. Nixon was monogomous – some like Roosevelt, Esienhower and Kenendy were not. Bush gave unlawful orders to the FBI, he is apparently monogomous.
Vote:October 19th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
I have no respect for homophobes, any more than I would give credence to racists, sexists, or other bigots. Can’t understand why so much space is being given to boring, ignorant bigots like Lucyna. All very similar to the Paul Henry discussion – nasty little people who want everyone to look, sound and be like their own bigoted selves.
I am so pleased that in Kapiti we have moved on from all this. Jenny Rowan is a wonderful Mayor, well-supported by her partner Jools, and doing a great job for Kapiti. I( am delighted that she has been re-elected, to work for us for another term.
Hopefully the bigots might move somewhere else.
Vote: