How they voted

August 29th, 2012 at 9:39 pm by David Farrar

The marriage equality bill passed by a huge 78 – 40 80 – 40. The voting sheets are below. An analaysis by party will follow later.

SKMBT_C253-12082921310

Now analysed by party. I understand Banks and Dunne did do proxy votes in favour which have now been accepted or are likely to be. Counting those, the voting stats are:

  • National 30-29
  • Labour 30-3 (1 not vote – Raymond Huo)
  • Greens 14-0
  • NZ First 0-8
  • Maori 3-0
  • Mana 1-0
  • ACT 1-0
  • United Future 1-0
  • Total 80-40 (1 non vote)
Tags: , ,

54 Responses to “How they voted”

  1. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,786 comments) says:

    That’s the sound of a tree crashing in a forest with no one there to hear it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nick K (916 comments) says:

    This doesn’t record a vote for John Banks. What happened there? He was supposed to vote Aye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    They are calling it ‘equality’? It will never be equality. It’s marriage ‘redefinition’.

    George Orwell would be proud. As one of his characters says “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    Good outcome. First reading only, but I think it presages what will happen at next reading. Good campaign from you DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nick K (916 comments) says:

    No OECD, it’s the sound of the sky falling. It’s the same sound that was made in 1986. Nothing happened from that noise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Bob (442 comments) says:

    A big flurry over the issue then in a couple of years it will all be forgotten just like the homosexual decriminisation bill and the prostitution bill. The churches will be ignored and the world won’t come to a grinding halt. Most homosexuals and lesbians are harmless and should be allowed to live how they like. As for adopting children they can’t be as bad as some heterosexual parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    This doesn’t record a vote for John Banks.

    Probably forgot to put in a proxy vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Aye votes for Banks and Dunne have now been allowed. Total 80-40.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nick K (916 comments) says:

    Thanks Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nick K (916 comments) says:

    2-1 in favour. There’s your referendum Winston & Colin. Now just Foxtrot Oscar will ya.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Good result for Colin Craig.

    Means plenty of votes (next election) for the Conservative Party at the expense of the ideologically lost and left wing/ progressive National Party.

    Conservatives now know most surely that National is not their party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Agree on Winston, his futile wee stand looks a bit of a flop, representative democracy seems to be working very well here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    BRB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    @juliefairey – I hear that both Nat whips, who had the proxies, went into the Noes lobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    ‘‘There is still an assumption in this House that members know better than the public when it comes to issues of morality,’’ Peters said.
    ‘‘That is an archaic belief that has no place in a modern democracy. This matter is by definition one of public morality … it must be decided by the public.’’

    I have an intense dislike of Winston Peters, but I do fully agree with him on this particular point.

    I mean his freedom with the truth as proven to be the case in several matters, proves I would not want him deciding such a moral issue, nor for further example would I leave it to John Banks, who’s memory now seems to not enable him to recall the years on Radio Pacific when he riled against homosexuals.

    I do not intend this to indicate what way I would vote, but indeed that I don’t think a mere 120 questionable random people should vote on the nations behalf, since they seem to be making up their own minds rather than acting as Members of the House of REPRESENTATIVES.

    Even the most pitiful of polls of any type do survey more than 120 people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. TM (78 comments) says:

    Interesting to see Chris Finlayson voting against it. Anyone know why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    There is a good reason why the homosexual lobbyists behind this move have tried so hard to avoid a referendum.

    They know they would lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tamati (58 comments) says:

    Suprised that Chris Findlayson was against the Bill. Perhaps he didn’t want to burden gays with the misery of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    TM

    Yes, it is because Finlayson is a deeply religious man.

    Go figure……he would rather be discriminated against than vote against the sky fairy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Yvette, I’m a strong promoter of better democracy, of listening more to the people, and guaging the will of the people. But I also see the need for representative democracy. I think the system has worked well enough in this case due to a conscience vote being held. There was ample opportunity to tell MPs what you thought, and for them to guage their electorate opinion and vote accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    “There is a good reason why the homosexual lobbyists behind this move have tried so hard to avoid a referendum.

    They know they would lose.”

    Lol..despite all the polls indicating that they would win hands down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Liberty and right triumph….hate and moronic ignorance get a kicking…..nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    TM- “Anyone know why?” (Finlayson voted “no”)

    Why would you need to ask this question?

    Finlayson understands the backlash that will develop against homosexuals. That’s why he has never been for it. Unlike most in National, Finlayson has been honest about the unpopularity of this legislation. He knows that in the long run it will be seriously counterproductive to the homosexual lobby’s quest for public acceptance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. questlove (241 comments) says:

    National 30-29
    Labour 30-3 (1 not vote – Raymond Huo)
    Greens 14-0
    NZ First 0-8
    Maori 3-0
    Mana 1-0
    ACT 1-0
    United Future 1-0
    Total 80-40 (1 non vote)

    Shame on half of the National Party & all of NZF who think it’s okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. (& those 3 rogue Labour Mps)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    john Banks’s cynicism has been well highlighted. Just a washed up political scammer.

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/08/29/john-banks-has-there-ever-been-a-more-useless-political-prick/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Thanks for the analysis Questlove, and the evidence that this bill passed its first reading because of the political treachery of the John Key National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    “Finlayson understands the backlash that will develop against homosexuals. That’s why he has never been for it. Unlike most in National, Finlayson has been honest about the unpopularity of this legislation. He knows that in the long run it will be seriously counterproductive to the homosexual lobby’s quest for public acceptance.”

    Once again that is utter rubbish. Finlayson is a deeply religious man (I believe he is Catholic) and as such has been asked in the past how his sexuality conflicts with his religious beliefs. The answer that Finlayson has given is that his faith trumps his sexuality and that he is a non practicing gay man. (or words to that effect).

    It really does not help things if you keep telling bare faced lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    Decisions decisions for the happy campers from the result of this vote. :)

    “When it comes to a gay wedding for a female couple, one of the most difficult decisions is what to wear. Do both of you wear big wedding dresses? Do both of you wear suits? Does one partner wear a dress and the other a suit? What’s the right combination?

    The simple answer is this: whatever you want to wear is the right combination! If you both want to wear grand weddings dresses, then do! If one of you wants to wear a slick top hat and tails outfit, then wear it! The most important thing is that both of you wear something that makes you feel fabulous.
    Focusing on wedding dresses

    If one or both of you decide to go for a traditional style wedding gown, there is a lot you can do to make finding your perfect gown easier, and style guides to help you find the best dress for your shape.

    It’s well worth your while to spend a couple of hours on the internet looking at different wedding dress designs (there are hundreds of sites out there and it doesn’t cost a penny). Pick out wedding gown styles that you like and print them out. If you have a wedding planning notebook, paste them in. Wedding gowns are strange in that there are so many different styles that are “in fashion” at once, so you might be spoilt for choice!

    Armed with said wedding notebook, the next thing to do is book an appointment at a bridal gown shop, and you can find gay-friendly suppliers in this book.

    An appointment is the best way to guarantee that one of the staff are available to give you their full attention, and it is absolutely essential on a Saturday when every other bride in the area is off work too!
    Keeping an open mind

    It can be nerve wracking to choose a dress as it’s for the most important event of your life and is probably the most expensive dress you’ll buy. A good assistant will look at the dresses you like and will make a selection of gowns for you to try on. Keeping an open mind in this situation is so important; you may find that a dress in a style you’d never normally consider is the perfect one!
    Wedding gowns and the dreaded body shape

    There’s quite a lot to bear in mind in terms of finding the right wedding dress. Firstly: shape. There are certain styles that suit certain shapes more than others.

    Full skirts and tailored bodices are good for people with bigger hips but a smaller waist as the fullness of the skirt hides chunky thighs and bottoms.

    If you’re tall and thin, go for softer, elegant lines and wide or scooped necklines. For the very petite, something in an A-line, or a design with princess seams is a good bet, with nothing to cut you off at the waist and make you look smaller.

    If you have quite a boyish figure, with a small bust and thick waist, you’ll look good in an Empire line, preferably one with some fabric gathered over the bust to make it look like there’s more there and balance you out.

    If you’re self-conscious about your upper arms, you can get wonderful jackets with some dresses to cover up them up, and short bolero style jackets accentuate slender waists and detract from small busts too.

    The assistants at these shops know all the tricks so it really pays to listen to them. If you’re having a winter wedding you could have had a glorious velvet coat or cloak.”

    http://www.gayweddingorganizer.co.uk/gay-marriage-guide/wedding-dresses-for-gay-weddings/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Regardless of the outcome of this polling in the House, conscience votes are undemocratic under MMP.

    List MPs are answereable to no-one but themselves when they take part in a conscience vote. With electorate MPs, voters can express their opinions on those MPs views at the general election. But the opinion of List MPs is no-one’s but their own, and list MPs include a number of party hacks who could not win any electorate.

    I think either list MPs should be barred from conscience votes, or all conscience votes should be scrapped and replaced by referendums.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Oh big bruv, red truely-bluely believes in his bizarre fantasies of marxists liberal gay activist lobbyists conspiracies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    They are calling it ‘equality’? It will never be equality. It’s marriage ‘redefinition’.

    Oh, you mean the way the Republic of South Africa “redefined” marriage when it struck down the obnoxious ban on inter-racial marriage. And not so long ago, it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his spouse — don’t recall anyone being too outraged when the New Zealand Parliament shut down that loophole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Its not the same thing at all Cwaig, and you know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    Hell the net is full of advice on this particular aspect of human behaviour! :)

    “In all the spittle-flecked, hymn-humming, hair-tugging, petal-strewn pre-nuptial hysteria over how many gays should be allowed in a marriage—the happy homo couple or just the priest, the choirmaster, and the hairdresser—we’ve all overlooked something far more important. The big day. The wedding.

    No aspect of our 21st-century lives is more parched of gayness than weddings. They are desperate for a fairy makeover. We heteros should be begging gays to come and give the best day of our lives a dressing-down by joining in. Weddings are a kitsch style crash of appalling taste, snotty tissues, blisters, lip gloss, dads dancing, and hypoglycemia. A wedding is like porn in that it promises far more than it’s ever going to deliver; unlike porn, we witness this scene with our grandparents and our kids.

    “The Wedding” is supposed to be a peak moment in our lives. Small children are encouraged to look forward to theirs with a fairy-tale longing. Little girls plan theirs before they’ve ever said a civil word to a boy, let alone kissed one. Then some tongue-tied, giddy swain slumps to one knee and tugs a velveteen box from his pocket, and his sweetheart, who up to this very moment has quite liked him, is more acutely embarrassed than she ever thought humanly possible. She stares at the pitiful diamond. The engagement ring is the ugliest, gaudiest piece of jewelry most women will ever wear. It sets in motion the most stressful and tearful year of their lives, one that will culminate in a day only heterosexuals could come up with.

    The average American wedding costs $27,000. The average American household takes in about $50,000. A wedding is the biggest expenditure many will ever make on one day. And the event can get far, far more fiscally incontinent than that. This average doesn’t include the aggregated costs incurred by everyone else: flights, hotels, hats, dresses, stag weekends, hen weekends, and the pres­ents.

    Then you look at the clothes and you wonder why any human would want to appear dressed like that in front of a crowd of people, most of whom they’re going to have to see again. Men get a version of tails or tux, or a morning suit with a gaudy comedy tie or a ready-made ascot, apparently artfully knotted by an elephant. An ascot is supposed to be classy and old-world yet is an item of neckwear that was just as ridiculous then as it is now. Perhaps there will be the addition of a waistcoat that looks like it’s been made from the same fabric as a cushion in a Chinese restaurant. Then there are the trousers; no man has ever gotten married in trousers that fit and one wonders where it’s written that the groom’s trousers must always resemble a giraffe’s foreskin.

    But it doesn’t matter, because no one will be looking at him. They’ll be looking at the bride. It is far, far worse for her, because she has to wear “The Dress.” The first bride to popularize white wedding dresses was Queen Victoria. She was a tiny, round, plain girl with a nose like a claw hammer and less chin than a terrapin. Charitably, the best thing you could say for her on her wedding day was that she looked like an ornamental toilet-tissue cover. Before Victoria, brides wore what suited them. Red was a popular color; so was black. It’s universally said that all brides look beautiful. Every bride is told repeatedly that she is breathtaking, but white is an unforgiving un-color unless you’re a baby or a corpse. White is particularly bad on pale, pinkish people, but not quite as bad as on sprayed-orange people. The only girls who manage to look decent in wedding dresses are those who look great for a living and would look good in a trash bag or traction. Wedding dresses are a collective blind spot, an aesthetic dead zone. We are brainwashed to believe that a wedding dress is magic, that it has the ability to transform everyone into a raging, shaggable piece of hot, virginal, must-have, never-been-had gorgeousness. But, like all fairy spells, it only works for one day. In any other context, a wedding dress makes you look like a transvestite, which is presumably why the groom isn’t allowed to see it before it’s too late to change his mind.

    A wedding is an occasion when a couple comes together to make solemn promises, the most profound and permanent promises of their lives. How wonderful the bride looks in her dress isn’t the only lie told at weddings. The happy couple is wafted up the aisle in a fog, a cacophony of lies. There are lies about the in-laws, about gaining sons and daughters, and about not having slept with any of the bridesmaids. We fib when we say we’ll obey, we are mendacious about “sickness and health,” and we’ve got our fingers crossed in the “for richer or poorer” bit. We lie that we like the cake, we lie that the best man’s speech was funny, and we lie that this was the best wedding ever. Perhaps the only thing that isn’t a lie is that, underneath all the confetti and the balloons and the sugared almonds, there are two people who’d really like to be married and start a family.

    Viewed from the pews, weddings are theater produced by straight amateurs using their own money. The resulting spectacle is what a dog show would be like if it were organized by the dogs. When gays remake weddings, the lighting will be the first thing to improve. Secondly, no one’s going to think that a fatless steak fryer is a suitable pres­ent, and the flowers won’t look ordered for a clown’s funeral. The music will also be classier; you won’t have to walk down the aisle to Meatloaf singing, “I would do anything for love / But I won’t do that.”

    The history of queer culture shows us that gay men are the trailblazers. Where they go, heterosexual women follow, dragging reluctant straight men behind them, who in turn bring Texans. That’s how civilization and musical theater evolve. Not to mention catering. The cake has got to go. The original wedding cake was a biscuit broken over the bride’s head to represent what was about to happen to her hymen. But that’s vulgar. Today the happy couple jointly hold a very phallic knife and together force it through the virginal white icing into the soft, moist sweetness, and in America, for those who are slow at symbolism, they then push cake into each other’s face as a sort of cakealingus.

    I understand that the bureaucratic holdup in allowing gays to have weddings like the rest of us is a problem with the exclusivity rules of the club. I thought that marriage was supposed to be a basic building block of society, that marriages come together to give the nation-state its tensile strength. Marriages make families, and families marry one another, creating a web of security and morality. Surely the right thing, the conservative thing, would be to get as many people into marriages as possible. The really radical-right, hair-shirt-and-burning-torches thing would be to insist that gays get married because, without wanting to be indelicate, all the stuff that gets the religiously intense so book-thumpingly incandescent about homosexuality is all the stuff that goes on before you’re married. If you want to stop them having fun up against walls and behind sofas, just let them get married. They’ll soon learn there’s precious little cake in the face after the wedding.

    There is a misconception that marriage is particularly Christian and a misconception that there is only one way to be married—neither of these is strictly or even loosely true. The whole heathen world has found ways to be married, often with multiple partners, usually polygamy, sometimes polyandry. Christian marriages have not always been a single man and woman over the age of consent. The age of consent itself is a movable social whim. It’s 16, 17, or 18 in America and as young as 12 in some countries. Plenty of Christians have been married as children. Marriages between blacks and whites have been universally legal in America only since 1967. The truth is that marriage is a temporal institution, set down by the state, overseen by civil servants, and sometimes sanctioned by the Church. I hesitate to speak for God, but I doubt that he cares whether or not you spent $27,000 and wore a hideous white dress to get his attention. Vicars certainly don’t encourage it. For most of the 2,000 years of Christianity, marriages were matters of connubial fact, entered into without fuss or fashion, or indeed a church. Weddings were largely for the rich. They were contracts for those with property and dowry and titles.”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/09/can-marriage-be-saved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. tamati (58 comments) says:

    Findlayson is a high ranked list M.P. So obviously not too concerned about loosing his seat. I guess he just honestly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Your history of the institution of marriage is entertaining, Johnboy (10.29 post), but is it relevant?

    Surely the core of the present debate is the legal right that marriage would give gay and lesbian couple to adopt children.

    Otherwise why wouldn’t a largely heathen mob find civil unions sufficient?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    Relevance is a concept I find boring Jack5.

    Stoking fires however is an art form, which in my abstract way and poor as I am at it, I derive intense satisfaction from! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    Isn’t it great, no wait, fantastic, to see Redbaiter cry about this? That makes this all the better for me. The fact that he swallowed Winston Peters rhetoric about a referendum, or that he ignored the “warning signs” from ACT Leader John Banks who said he will vote in favour – all that and he’s still beating the drum that Kiwis are against this law. This in the face of popular opinion polls and word on the street – Redbaiter still thought he know best.

    I thought knowing what’s best for others was a nanny state trait? It seems that maybe you are the progressive marxist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    ;-) Compulsory gay sex for all New Zealanders just got a step closer tonight eh?

    :-P ‘Baiter – I hope you’ve started stocking up on Anal Lube, you’re gonna need it soon enough good buddy!

    Watching the tight-lipped conservatives wail and wring their hands over this issue is just a glorious thing to behold. I have waited years to hand these crappy metaphors back to the clowns who’ve been dishing them out ad nauseam…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Say, johnboy, what will you wedding etiquette look like? Surely now that we cultural-marxist liberal elite gay militant activists have cleared the path to a slippery slope to legalising man-sheep marriage, you must be hearing wedding bells. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    Following RRM’s advice I intend stocking up on sheep-friendly lanolin lube tomorrow eszett. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. questions (132 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter (530) Says:
    There is a good reason why the homosexual lobbyists behind this move have tried so hard to avoid a referendum.
    They know they would lose.”

    No, it’s because we don’t hold referendums on fundamental human rights…

    “Jack5 (2,613) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
    Regardless of the outcome of this polling in the House, conscience votes are undemocratic under MMP.

    List MPs are answereable to no-one but themselves when they take part in a conscience vote.”

    If you don’t like what the MP’s on the list stand for, don’t vote for their party, pretty simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. iMP (2,150 comments) says:

    My understanding is that Findlayson is actually gay, but wants Civil Unions to retain all the rights for gays etc therein, but for marriage to be left alone. A very wise legal head; he gets the long term issues

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    “we don’t hold referendums on fundamental human rights…”

    In view of the subject I would have worded that one slightly differently questions! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    I don’t question
    Like Jack 5 I want them banned and binding referendums as 112 Mps proved last sitting and now we have 80 who are unfit for purpose.
    interesting to know how many of the 80 voted for the anti-smacking bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Its not the same thing at all Cwaig, and you know it.

    After all this time, you still can’t spell my commonplace name. Pardon me if I doubt you know what’s in my mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So embarrassing for some people in 20 years’ time when society hasn’t imploded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (13,384 comments) says:

    If the concept of gay marriage takes off I estimate we will have 5 billion less souls for the planet to feed in a hundred years so queer as it may sound it could be the saving of civilisation as we know it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    And here I was thinking christians were supporters of unconditional love and the sanctity of marriage. Now we may see a few more couples choosing to be married, who will be in love. Surely this is preferable to the types of marriage celebrities get themselves into these days?

    The proof that the “anti” campaign was flawed from the beginning is the fact that the bill is only opposed by christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    Johnboy, marriage usually brings about LESS sex not more sex. I love that you have just said that gay marriage in NZ will bring about the deaths of 5 billion potential lives in 100 years. You are even more ridiculous than I ever thought you could possibly be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (12,622 comments) says:

    Lovely birds: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7575345/Wedded-to-marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Questions posted at 11.35pm:

    …If you don’t like what the MP’s on the list stand for, don’t vote for their party, pretty simple.

    Wrong. Not simple, and plain wrong.

    The party is not responsible for individual members’ positions in a conscience vote. That’s why it is differentiated as a conscience vote. If a citizen feels strongly enough about an electorate MP’s conscience vote, that citizen can take the MP’s vote and view into consideration when the citizen votes for the electorate at the next election.

    Not so with list MPs. They are answerable to no-one and represent no-one when they take part in a conscience vote. You cannot effectively or even logically express your dissatisfaction with a list MP’s position on a conscience poll by simply changing or withholding your party vote.

    List MPs conscience voting is a flaw in the MMP system. Another was the proliferation of parties it allowed in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, and in which Hitler rose to power. In West Germany, after the Western Allies handed self-determination back after World War 2, the German people amended MMP by introducing the 5 per cent threshold for accessing party seats. Now there is a suggestion that NZ reduce this to 4 per cent.

    If NZ wants highly representative government over the more decisive government delivered by MMP, it should at least make its MMP system democratic by ruling out list MPs’ participation in conscience votes, or (and better in my view) by barring conscience votes and replacing them with referendums.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    It’s been interesting watching the evolution of the opposition to this, as the haters follow the perceived line of least resistance.

    First it was simple head-in-the-sand bigotry:
    “No, marriage is between a man and a woman, it JUST IS, okay! Tradition says… The Bible says… what about the children…”

    Then in the last few days pre- first reading, when it became pretty clear that there were no rational arguments that held any water, the opposition changed to deflection:
    “why are we discussing this when there’s a recession on, haven’t we got more important issues to sort out?”

    And now that it’s passed first reading by a good margin, it’s changed again and it’s now ripping into the politicians as a way of feeling some catharsis:
    “We can’t trust any of these Politicians anymore, especially the fakes in the National Party! Hemp rope isn’t good enough for the likes of them…”

    (That hemp rope comment is an actual quote from the Redbaiter bloc blog, by the way! )

    It is MAGNIFICENT watching the Conservatives of the Redbaiter bloc and the Christian Taliban reduced to impotent, furious hand-wringing as this unfolds.
    I’m looking forward to weeks more of this before the bill passes… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    RRM, it is glorious isn’t it? You forgot to add all the “academic” opinion that was presented that in fact it was taking marriage away from the straights and that equality actually meant LESS equality. That was a humdinger. Orwell eat your heart out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. roger777 (1 comment) says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was only the first reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. The female/male/other gender person of generous physique ain’t vocally gesticulating yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.