A young submitter

January 28th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Kirsty Johnston at Stuff reports:

A teenager opposed to gay marriage has accused select committee members of behaving in a hostile and “menacing” way to submitters who are against a proposed law change for same-sex couples. …

In a press release sent to the Sunday Star-Times, McCoskrie said 18-year-old was left humiliated, disappointed and frustrated by the experience – and she’s not the only person to have complained.

However, the committee members say all submitters were treated with respect – even if they did roll their eyes at the girl when she began to quote civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr …

Her oral submission is online here. I think it is great an 18 year old takes the time to submit and appear, and this should be encouraged. It is unfortunate she felt she did not get a fair go. However I would make the point that the more provocative the submission, the more of a response you tend to get.

Her appendices are well argued (thought I disagree on the fundamental point that marriage was created by the law of nature and is untouchable).

She said in the middle of her speech, acting chair Chris Auchinvole got up to get a drink, and when she finished her speech with the words of Martin Luther King Jr, Hague was “unsavoury and menacing” to her, calling her homophobic.

“The whole experience was very strange. There was a lack of common courtesy and respect,” she said.

Auchinvole said it was common for committee members to get drinks and go to the toilet during submissions as long as a quorum was maintained and that Carroll had already made a written submission to which she was speaking.

I’ve had MPs grab a drink during my submissions. It means they are thirsty.

Tags: ,

85 Responses to “A young submitter”

  1. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    I’ve had MPs grab a drink during my submissions. It means they are thirsty.

    When the drink in question is 80% proof, I think it means something else.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    And she’s learned at a young age what we all realise at some point. Politicians aren’t really interested in listening to the electorate at all.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    This is the Kevin Hague everyone praises as being easy to work with right?

    Here he comes across as a coward and a bully.

    And what is someone so personally involved doing on such a committee anyway?

    What objectivity could he bring to its findings?

    Just a set up.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    All power to the young and brave Grace Carroll.

    A true hero in a nation of sycophantic PC lemmings.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Not strictly relevant, but it makes me laugh every time:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Well done Grace Carroll. Sadly this exercise is simply window dressing – the decisions have been made. Any nastiness from the committee just shows you’re hitting the right notes. Keep it up.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    The setting up of these clearly stacked committees shows just how dishonest the proponents of redefining marriage are and makes the case for a referendum.

    Let the people speak, not duplicitous, self interested and phony “committees” set up to deceive.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,833 comments) says:

    Resorting to name calling to a young submitter is par for the course for the most evil MP in Parliament.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Ah Reddy you’ve been sucked in big time.
    This girl and she is a girl , barely out of nappies was sent by the likes of McCoskrie just for this effect.
    You rant on about kids at school being programmed by lefties in the education system yet the very time one rears it pretty little head you fail to recognise exactly what it was. McCroskrie and co propaganda.

    Gees man the kid barley has her hormones raging so how the hell is she able to accuratley assess what her own true feelings will ultimately be. Classic brainwashing by the followers of the sky fairy.

    God takes kids brains out at 13 and doesn’t give them back untill the reach 33. Just rmember that.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrei (2,545 comments) says:

    However I would make the point that the more provocative the submission, the more of a response you tend to get.

    Now there’s a statement that demostrates how far the rabbit hole the elites in Wellington have fallen.

    If you were to present her views on marriage to anybody in New Zealand a mere twenty years ago – all would have nodded their head in a agreement.

    Her views would be considered mainstream and totally unprovocative in Warsaw, Moscow, Belgrade, Ulan Bator, in fact most capital cities in the world today.

    Bizzaro

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott Chris (6,024 comments) says:

    From her submission:

    Through the attempt to rectify a so-called ‘discrimination’ for one party, the Bill is discriminating against other parties.

    :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,774 comments) says:

    If a citizen makes the effort to turn up at a select committee and make a sincere effort to contribute to the laws of the land, then the select committee should be absolutely respectful. Getting up to get a glass of water while someone is speaking to you is fucking rude. Let alone the (mostly intangible) posturing that is alleged to have taken place.

    Having said that, I am not surprised that eyes were rolled when a (no doubt privileged) little 18yo white schoolgirl who has paid little in the way of taxes, or struggled or achieved much in her life stood up and gave a speech about how gays shouldn’t be entitled to get married because “inequality will always exist in our society of freedom.”

    Fuck off. Get a haircut and get a real job. You [deleted by DPF - demerits next time].
    Try actually making your own way in the world for a while, before you start saying it’s right for certain taxpaying citizens to be granted less rights and acknowledgement than other taxpaying citizens, because of a third party’s opinions about morality.

    [And dropping in a throwaway quote from Martin Luther King Jr in an attempt to create a stirring end to a speech on ANY topic other than black civil rights in 1960s USA is cringe-worthily 4th form. Just don't do it.]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick K (1,222 comments) says:

    MPs are our servants, not our masters. Yet many of them behave like they’re our masters. We are their bosses. If an employee treated me like that words would be said. Why do so many MPs overlook this simple fact? Is it the power? Regardless of any of that, weren’t they taught manners and respect when growing up? That’s all that is asked for here.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thedavincimode (6,612 comments) says:

    I am not surprised that eyes were rolled when a (no doubt privileged) little 18yo white schoolgirl who has paid little in the way of taxes, or struggled or achieved much in her life stood up

    When you put it that way RRM, she seems to have more in common with the people she was presenting to than you might otherwise have expected.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fox (205 comments) says:

    You know, it makes me wonder what prompts a person at such a young, tender age to have developed such a passionate view on an issue like this.

    Then I see her name is ‘Grace’. To my mind that makes it a 99% likelyhood she comes from a religious family. So her parents have been telling her for the best part of her life how being gay is a sin (all in the name of God of course) and, as an obvious extention to that, how the idea of gay marriage therefore is preposterous.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think the idea of young people making submissions and truly getting involved in the political process is great.
    However in this case I would question to what extent Grace did so out of her own volition and as a result of her own free thinking, given her likely religious upbringing/affiliations.
    Perhaps her parents didn’t have the gall to front up to the committee themselves, and therefore sent poor Grace to do the dirty work for them?

    As for Hague’s ‘homophobic’ comment (if true); absolutely pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    When you see the widespread support for this farcical “committee”, and its bullying and its deceit, it helps you understand just how deeply perverted and corrupt our political system has become, and likewise, how our society has morally degenerated under the influence of the progressives.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “This girl and she is a girl”

    More guts and maturity than most of the lemming like deeply infected with progressive/ Marxist bullshit commenters on Kiwiblog.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,833 comments) says:

    A friend of mine when making a submission to a Select Committee that Hague was on refereed SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) and some of the National MPs laughed and Hague did not challenge him. He is an evil coward as well as a bully who puts his homosexual agenda ahead of public health.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. MT_Tinman (3,094 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,701) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:39 am

    If you were to present her views on marriage to anybody in New Zealand a mere twenty years ago – all would have nodded their head in a agreement.

    You are correct. Luckily we are now 20 years older and most of us 20 years wiser.

    The getting-up-for-a-drink thing amused me, complained about as it was by a young woman who no doubt, like her peers, cannot go two steps from home without a bloody bottle of water.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. BlairM (2,317 comments) says:

    I think the Left are treated with far too much respect and deference. Naturally, since they are a pack of little Hitlers, they don’t return the favour. I think people need to start being a lot ruder to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. pq (728 comments) says:

    how precious

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Perhaps her parents didn’t have the gall to front up to the committee themselves, and therefore sent poor Grace to do the dirty work for them?

    Note to 18 years olds: If you come from a Christian family you don’t have opinions, you simply do your parents dirty work. If you don’t come from a Christian family we want to hear form you. Thanks.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “I think people need to start being a lot ruder to them.”

    Yeah, hooray for equality in rudeness…!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,091 comments) says:

    You are correct. Luckily we are now 20 years older and most of us 20 years wiser.

    That “some of us” consider ourselves 20 years wiser and more superiour than well established wisdom is the problem here.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,394 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,959) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:57 am
    A friend of mine when making a submission to a Select Committee that Hague was on refereed SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) and some of the National MPs laughed and Hague did not challenge him. He is an evil coward as well as a bully who puts his homosexual agenda ahead of public health.

    I agree, challenging him on his idiocy would have been a public health service.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. scrubone (3,091 comments) says:

    This girl and she is a girl , barely out of nappies was sent by the likes of McCoskrie just for this effect.
    You rant on about kids at school being programmed by lefties in the education system yet the very time one rears it pretty little head you fail to recognise exactly what it was. McCroskrie and co propaganda.

    Uh, so *not* unilaterally changing the dictionary is now propaganda. I’ll make a note.

    If you read what she actually said, it was as much about how the “pro” submitters were treated with sympathy as it was how hostily she was.

    I agree that young people have less to contribute that people with experience, but the ones who say otherwise were the ones who were at fault in this encounter.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. scrubone (3,091 comments) says:

    I also find it consistently fascinating that people who would never (in the past at least) be seen as standing against religious freedom and tollerance so quick to tell religious people that their views are not legitimate and should be kept private.

    Not all moving forward is progress I guess.

    Also, I believe it was just about 10 years ago when this issue went from “That’s crazy talk, there’s no Gay agenda” to “you dare oppose human rights you homophobe”.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RF (1,368 comments) says:

    Hague never pushes my buttons. Comes across as “Me first I am gay”.

    I doubt if he would survive as a list MP in a major city. Too precious.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fox (205 comments) says:

    Actually, when a child gets a Bible shoved under it’s nose at the age of 5, and henceforth told by the parents on an almost daily basis that that is the only truth, I would question to what degree we’re talking about true religious ‘freedom’ here.

    What is true religious freedom to me? – Waiting until the child is 18, presenting them with the Bible and saying “here, read this, if you want, and make of it what you will”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,833 comments) says:

    See what Binnie the Ninny thinks of the right of freedom of expressive if it does not go a lone with his world view.

    http://www.driveforjustice.com/2012/12/17/drive-for-justice-26-our-ermine-clad-masters-decide/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (9,774 comments) says:

    That “some of us” consider ourselves 20 years wiser and more superiour than well established wisdom is the problem here.

    Please, tell us more about how it’s a problem that some of us today consider our views superior to the established wisdom of the past.

    Make as many references to Ferdinand & Isabella deporting the Jews from Spain in 1492 as you like.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “Actually, when a child gets a Bible shoved under it’s nose at the age of 5″

    I’m always surprised that the people who say this kind of thing don’t seem to see the hypocrisy in their views.

    For example, your average urban liberal would probably inculcate views in their own children, most likely by encouraging them to watch over a 100 hours of liberally biased television disguised as entertainment but really just propaganda replete with subliminal progressive political/ social messages, or send them to government controlled schools, where they are indoctrinated with similar views, and then to universities where the Stalinism enforcing progressivism is palpable, or to watch movies produced by Hollywood liberals that do even worse damage than the TV programs, and then after all this, they claim it is Christians who are “brainwashing” their children.

    FFS..!!

    Maybe Christians are brainwashing their kids. Maybe they are not. Maybe they are just being good parents.

    But whatever, their kids usually make far better citizens than the boozing bludging sexually permissive amoral and immoral drug addicted losers that so many NZ kids of progressive parents have become.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kleva Kiwi (285 comments) says:

    This thread is classic.
    It clearly shows, that there is a split down the middle. None of this 83% crap that some are spouting. NZ is divided! and stacked committees like this need to be challenged/dissolved.

    Politicians have no place in making laws over this so called human rights ‘issue’. Let the public make up its mine on this one and put it to referendum. Stifle the propaganda (case and point, DPF) and put the facts forward.

    In my experience NZ has about 25% against, 25% fore, and 50% don’t care…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    But whatever, their kids usually make far better citizens than the boozing bludging sexually permissive amoral and immoral drug addicted losers that so many NZ kids of progressive parents have become.

    Yep, slutty catholic schoolgirls grow up to be pretty good citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Oh yeah, christian kids grow up to be just perfect little citizens; as evidenced by their demands to deny rights to icky people.

    You guys know how to raise an atheist? Either don’t indoctrinate them into any religion, or raise them in a religion and hope they are intelligent.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fox (205 comments) says:

    For example, your average urban liberal would probably inculcate views in their own children

    I’m always suprised that there are so many people willing to promulgate the ‘two wrongs make a right’ argument.

    Yes no doubt there are some fanatic left-wing parents attempting to impose their political beliefs upon their children, as I’m sure is also the case on the right side of the political spectrum.

    However, if we were to accept this as a justification for religious people (muslim, christian, whatever) effectively brainwashing their children, then it’s pretty much a race to the bottom, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 81 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    You might find that religion doesn’t have much to do with it, since there’s plenty of well rounded kids who don’t have an imaginary friend.
    Probably more to do with the attitude of the parents than their religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BlairM (2,317 comments) says:

    The idea that you should withhold Bibles from a child until they are 18 is ridiculous. Religious faith is not a form of recreational drug (yeah I know, opiate of the masses). Personally I try to expose my children to as many different ideas as possible. Their mother is an atheist, and I tell them that, and I tell them that everyone has to make up their own mind. The solutiion is aways more information, never less.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    Hey, note another example of the inherent dishonesty of the pro marriage redefinition clique in the obviously contrived down voting of my 1:25pm comment.

    Once again, after Grace Carroll’s mistreatment in front of a stacked committee, we are provided with clear evidence that these people are amoral and they cannot deal fairly and frankly with opinion that confronts their precious progressive sensibilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (1,907) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    No it is not a race to the bottom. Its a moral judgment that has to be made, and its why the trend to portray judging people as politically incorrect is so damaging. Sooner or later, you have to make that moral judgment.

    As for the facts, look at the degeneration the progressives have wrought. Crime, drugs, alcohol, family breakdown, welfare addiction, all requiring a huge huge government presence at huge cost.

    Its pretty obvious who is fucking up here, and it is not the Christians.
    —————————-
    A long time ago growing up, I was taught that good Christians don’t talk about sex, don’t swear and lots of other don’t’s. (Blatant covering over the cracks of course).
    For many of them blasphemy and swearing was just not to be tolerated. (well if they heard it). When it came to swearing I can understand that and many of the Christians and Sky fairy believers that I have contact with to this day still think that’s so.
    I respect that when conversing with them of course, whilst not necessarily being bothered by swearing and indulging often myself.
    I find it an irreconsilable stance though when Reddy is spending all day moralizing on here and finishes up swearing at the rest of us.
    Obviously not that Christian. (or perhaps belongs to the Pope fairy Faith and pays for plenty of Hail Mary’s each week to put his sins right.) :lol:
    ——————————–
    As for the facts, look at the degeneration the progressives have wrought. Crime, drugs, alcohol, family breakdown, welfare addiction, all requiring a huge huge government presence at huge cost.
    ———————-
    Oh so the Church didn’t bring alcoholism, Triar Fuck and his wineries and monestaries full of pissheads and peaqdo’s.

    Crime, well the Church really are Saints. How many Holy Wars and why aren’t they a crime against Humanity Red?

    Drugs. Well who are the biggest of the cartels handing their koha too. Mafia mean anything. Worse so long as they pay the blind eye gets turned.

    Family Breakdown. Now with the best will in the world religion can’t absolve itself from that.

    Have another try Reddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    Gee weddy you got almost not quite eighty.
    Pity they are the wrong ones
    …….EH……..
    :lol:
    :lol:

    snort
    ….
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fox (205 comments) says:

    Hey, note another example of the inherent dishonesty of the pro marriage redefinition clique in the obviously contrived down voting of my 1:25pm comment.

    Contrived? Nah, -70 looks about right to me. I’d say the really suspicious ones are up top with +24 and +28… :)

    On a more serious note, I hope DPF is paying attention. It’s a good reason to do away with the whole thumbs up/down business.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “It’s a good reason to do away with the whole thumbs up/down business.”

    I don’t think so. Its clearly disliked by liberals because it quite frequently displays the fact that their views are not as widely accepted as they always assume.

    It is only dishonest sneering cowardly and amoral scum like Grief (a good example of the perverted mindset of the left) who fuck it up for all, but that of course is another issue, and really just demonstrates why those who lack even the small amount of integrity needed to operate this little voting system are not worth arguing with on any subject. Mostly, they’re on the left, for if you are moral, you could not support what they support.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Gay marriage: A race to the bottom.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    If I’m called to a meeting by a client – and I abhor meetings, because most could be replaced by an exchange of emails – then I might pour myself a glass of water but I do not get up mid way through and go to the toilet, roll my eyes, and then describe them with an insulting epithet when they’re done.

    As Nick K says above, they’re our employees and they’re paid ridiculous amounts of money to do the job, which includes admittedly tedious Select Committee work. Don’t like it? Then get lost – there’s a queue of people who’ll take your place for $140k a year plus perks.

    Grace’s submission is, for the most part, poorly thought out. It relies on the “letting homosexuals marry diminishes the marriages of heterosexuals” fallacy and wrongly states that churches will be forced to marry gay couples.

    But other parts of it speak of her beliefs – which may well come from the way she was raised, but parents have a right to raise their children as they wish – and are no doubt genuinely held. She deserves respect and a fair hearing.

    And I disagree 18 year olds don’t have much to contribute in this debate. Would those saying that be of that opinion if this was a gay 18 year old, speaking of their life to date and how they hoped to be allowed to marry?

    Grace’s would not be the first imperfect submission to a Select Committee. I wonder how the Committee reacted to the mis-spelled poorly composed disjointed 140 odd words from Garth McVicar?

    With more respect, I’ll bet, because he has a few grey hairs. Could it be the chairman, so much against what he sees as discrimination against one group, is an ageist?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    She deserves respect and a fair hearing, bollocks Rex, she is a virginal eighteen year old who is still confused wether she is gay or straight.
    Spare me from children who have done nothing, no nothing, and to whom we give the bloody vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. cha (3,933 comments) says:

    If she had a clue she’d refer to Luke 6: 22-23 and be happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Blessed are the cheesemakers.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Grumpy,

    You are absolutely correct.

    Most young people are inherently fascist. No nothing know-it-alls who want to use the state to force other people to do what they think is best. Look at the Green Party for example, the modern Fascist Party. Look at student unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. gump (1,617 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    The reason your comments get voted down is because they’re unadulterated idiocy.

    If you want to be taken seriously then you might like to try composing a sensible, well-written, and measured reply.

    But then again, perhaps you don’t want to be taken seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    gump – don’t you know, it’s not because of his unadulterated idiocy at all. It’s because we’re all communists, his comments are well reasoned and written, and we’re the illiterate idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Did I really write “no nothing”?

    Jesus save me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    Zach Wahls speaks about growing up with two lesbian parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    So she’s 18?…..Let’s kill her and examine her brain, especially her neural network density. it will probably show she has more than all of us here. The only problem with the young is their undeveloped impulse control system that doesn’t mature until around 25, so, She’s young, big deal, The young are more connected than anyone here and yet for this one meeting a lone 18 year old had the balls to step into generally, a snake pit and what has it taught her?

    The face of Nz politics.

    It will either strengthen her or chase her away, i hope it’s the former and for those who are lost in some neurotic delusion that the church aliens who want to bugger everyone on the planet and signed a treaty with the USA, Where’s your 18 yr olds?

    Guess what your 18 year olds are going to do? Their going to vote for multinational entities to manage our country and they are going to want it. Gone is the old mono-polar management system of sovereign state accountable to the lands law. The TPP is evidence enough of this. the power system has transferred over to the multinationals who now want to bring governance to the net and most of you here agree with them. Your kids are going to complete this journey without knowing what they have given up.

    So tell me, what are your 18 year olds standing up for?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (2,332) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    She deserves respect and a fair hearing, bollocks Rex, she is a virginal eighteen year old who is still confused wether she is gay or straight.
    Spare me from children who have done nothing, no nothing, and to whom we give the bloody vote.

    —————————————
    Never understood why we did. Most of them are gormless brain constrained idiots at that age. I spend hours a day like every employer, helping to pick up the pieces in their lives that have fallen to bits.

    And Grumpy; Many seem to grow up to be adults of the same ilk. More than a few frequent KB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wreck1080 (3,866 comments) says:

    Those against gay marriage are treated like holocaust deniers.

    So, in some ways NZ is still an intolerant society refusing to allow people to have alternate views.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    My experience was that the select committee was hopelessly biased and let people know very early whether they were in favour or not. Ruth Dyson was chairing and warmly received the submissions of the rainbow wing of the Labour party (no surprise there) and Margaret Mayman, the pastor of St Andrews on the Terrace (the most liberal church in New Zealand).
    Your humble correspondent was not greeted at all warmly. Indeed immediately warned about the intolerant nature of my submission. This before I had even spoken a word!
    It is clear that the select committee has a predetermined outcome in mind, to recommend gay marriage to parliament and see it become the law of the land.
    I suspect the reason they got stuck into young Grace was that they have been saying for the past year that the youth are on their side. Here was an authentic young person that defied that meme. She, must be silenced at all costs!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (6,251 comments) says:

    chiz (910) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Chiz, well that is just one guy, in a video put up by the Iowa House Democrats. Wonder where they found him?
    Anyway, listen what a guy had to say who attended the pro-traditional-marriage rally in France –

    Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France. One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

    Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”

    “As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.” If the women who raised him had been married, “I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Those against interracial marriage are treated like holocaust deniers.

    So, in some ways NZ is still an intolerant society refusing to allow people to have alternate views.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kevin Hague (7 comments) says:

    I suspect people commenting on this thread will largely have made up their minds about this incident based on how they feel about Louisa’s bill, so there may be nothing to be achieved by adding my perspective but, you know , accountability.

    If you have read the Sunday Star Times piece, you know that Grace Carroll’s account of what occurred on 10th December is disputed by members of the committee from the three parties represented on it. Some questions that may not have occurred to you:

    1. why are these accusations emerging nearly two months after the meeting?
    2. why hasn’t any complaint been made to the Committee or to the Speaker?
    3. why wasn’t this bad behaviour by the Committee members reported at all by the journalists present?
    4. why have no journalists or other independent observers stepped forward to corroborate her account?

    You may have also noticed that no other media have covered the Family First claims. Journalists who have been covering the select committee hearings will confirm, I think, that committee members – both for and against – have done a good job of dealing respectfully and reasonably with submitters. Sometimes that is in the face of aggressive or offensive content or tone. Check out some of the submissions if you doubt that.

    As for suggestions that the committee has already made up its mind, I would point out that EVERY bill that comes to a select committee has already had its first reading. Parties and individual MPs already have views about it. But my experience is that all MPs believe we have a responsibility to hear what people have to say, and bills are usually improved by the process. Yes, 4 members of the committee voted for the first reading and 2 against. That’s the same proportion as the first reading debate, and scientific public opinion polls. Sure there are reasonable reservations that could be expressed, but I don’t see a better way of conducting the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    “It is clear that the select committee has a predetermined outcome in mind, to recommend gay marriage to parliament and see it become the law of the land.”

    Yes, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the campaign to achieve this is driven by bullies and underpinned by deceit and totalitarian like attempts to silence opposing opinions. A pressure group of thugs and propagandists.

    John Key must know this is going on.

    What a painful PC wimp he is. Along with so many other members of our parliament.

    Apparently not one of them has the guts or the honesty to step forward and put a stop to this obvious fraud upon the people of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    So being free to pursue one’s one happiness is now equated as “deceit and totalitarian.”

    Ah Red, you poor statist fool.

    Sorry that your social engineering efforts didn’t work out this time.

    I’m sure you and your fellow marxists will regroup.

    In the meantime, the rest of us will lead our own lives free from your statist interference.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    1. why are these accusations emerging nearly two months after the meeting?

    Probably because that is how long it takes to get NZ’s obviously pro-homosexual marriage media to report something like this. In fact I’m highly surprised it made it into print at all.

    2. why hasn’t any complaint been made to the Committee or to the Speaker?

    Probably because in the face of such obvious bias it would be completely fruitless. Nevertheless, maybe the victim should try it. If after the treatment she has already suffered, she can screw the required courage together.

    3. why wasn’t this bad behaviour by the Committee members reported at all by the journalists present?

    Ha ha.. you’re joking right. Since when have the media ever reported objectively on this issue. They’re all for it like the whining sycophantic yellow progressive dogs they all are. In countless surveys on the issue, mainstream media journalists are regarded with less respect than used car salesmen, and there is good reason for this lack of regard.

    4. why have no journalists or other independent observers stepped forward to corroborate her account?

    I’ve already dealt qwith the journalist question. As for others- fear. Who wants to be labeled as bigoted, homophobic, dinosauric, ignorant, and be otherwise trashed by the loud mouthed pro-redefinition of marriage lobby? (Wasn’t it you guys who made threats against Colin Craig’s property?)

    Here’s a question for you.

    Why don’t you just say Grace is a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    It is possible for two people to present very different accounts of a meeting without either of them being a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Hahahaha, redbaiter is a dpf construct designed to draw traffic to kiwi blog what else explains the lunacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html
    Reality plays tricks on your wiring :lol:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/12/son_of_the_invisible_gorilla/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kowtow (8,175 comments) says:

    It used be asked “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” and the answer was of course “his lips are moving.”

    Today you can tell when they’re lying when their keybord is moving.

    I find it ironic that so many KB warriors who identify supposedly with the right are in bed with Greens and the rainbow faction of Labour.

    Maybe that should be KY warriors.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    Fletch:Chiz, well that is just one guy, in a video put up by the Iowa House Democrats. Wonder where they found him?
    Anyway, listen what a guy had to say who attended the pro-traditional-marriage rally in France

    Yes, and the same point applies to the french guy you keep quoting. You somehow seem to think that a guy at such a rally is objective and representative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Reid (16,224 comments) says:

    I suspect people commenting on this thread will largely have made up their minds about this incident based on how they feel about Louisa’s bill

    Really? Well how do you come to be so prescient Kev? How do you come not only to know what people think, but why they think it?

    Is this because you hallucinate in your barking, braying lunacy that anyone who’s against the bill weally hates gays and that’s the only reason why they don’t like it?

    I realise I’m making all sorts of assumptions about your views Kev but this is because I’ve watched you and Wall et al make similar assumptions about those submitters opposed to the bill, so I’m assuming you’re comfortable with that since you instigated the tactic in the first place.

    However on the possibility you want to have a real debate, why don’t you explain to us how not being allowed to get married is “discwimination?” I mean you and Wall claim that all the time, don’t you. Yet you and other gays get all the rights under civil union, don’t you. Apart from adoption. So if you want to have an adoption debate, why not do a bill on that and let’s discuss that. But that’s the only right gays don’t currently have, right? So don’t you think it’s a rather scurrilous tactic that you and Wall at al pretend it’s about something it’s not. Or is that because you “don’t see a better way of conducting the process?”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Reid, becoming a step-parent of a partners child when marrying them is not adoption. That civil union partners – heterosexual or same sex – do not become parents of their partners child is not an adoption issue. It is just evidence that there is not equal status before the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Reid (16,224 comments) says:

    It is just evidence that there is not equal status before the law.

    Is it? Well last I heard, the partner of a divorced woman doesn’t become the legally recognised father of her children. Or vice versa. So apparently SPC, there is equal status under the law.

    And BTW, I wasn’t particularly talking about that. The clue was in the word I used: adoption.

    The point was, sigh, not that I wish to debate adoption but that it’s the only possible thing gays can point to in the discwimination arena that remotely resembles anything like it. And yet, and yet, and yet, gays like Kevin talk of nothing else but the tewwible and howwible discwimination that is giving rise to this gwasswoots upswelling of humanity in the name of dealing with “discwimination.”

    But they can’t point to anything, nothing, nada, zip, which remotely resembles any actual discwimination, at all, in any way. And neither could you, just now, either, could you. No, you couldn’t. Apart from adoption. So why doesn’t Kev put up a gay adoption bill and let’s have a debate about that, and leave the marriage issue alone, because the discwimination argument is a red herring and always was a red herring.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Reid, step-parent status occurs when marrying a partner with children. This is denied with civil unions. Thus they do not provide equality with marriages.

    So when you say the only area where there is not equality is adoption you are wrong. You keep saying it and keep ignoring the point about step-parent status.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Reid (16,224 comments) says:

    Reid, step-parent status occurs when marrying a partner with children. This is denied with civil unions.

    SPC this is a finess on the adoption issue and like I say, if gays want to talk about adoption, or step-parenting, why let’s have an adoption or step-parenting debate, and let’s not obfuscate this debate with the issue of marriage, which is completely and utterly different, unless of course you want to obfuscate the issue, in the minds of the silly old public, so they don’t know what they’re signing up for?

    Do you or Kev want to do that?

    It appears you do.

    Isn’t that underhand and sinister?

    Yes, it is. Why not come out the closet and confess your real motives?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Reid, being married only allows the same sex couple to apply to adopt as a couple – they can apply now as single adults.

    In most cases, same sex couples are more interested in the status of the partner as a parent of the children of the other. Marriage is more likely to lead to guardian status for the partner if the birth parent was to die for example etc.

    Is it underhand and sinister to thwart your attempt to make same sex marriage appear an issue directly related to adoption?

    Many counries allowed same sex couple adoption before moving to same sex marriages. For example the UK did this years ago and is only now moving to same sex marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    reid ask why do we want this
    Because the reasons not to consist of: We do it this way so we can not change. Tradition
    The rebuttal of this standpoint is : We already have changed.

    The church has the right to dictate morality to its members . It does not have a right to dictate to the majority of us who do not accept the authority of the church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fletch (6,251 comments) says:

    Griff, the Church notwithstanding, surely anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that a union of two men or two women cannot conceivably constitute a marriage. There is so much just wrong with the idea. Two men or two women just aren’t compatible sexually or otherwise in regard to a union based on eros.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    You can not comprehend that two males or two females can still have a union based on Eros.
    And that many successful marriages are not based on Eros

    I have a long term relationship with a woman lasting for 30 years in that time we both have had partners at present we dont
    I do not conform to your view of morality or tradition Many others in the world are the same.
    when you talk of the destruction of society you look back with rose tinted glasses to a time that never existed and insult many of us that are here now. Many are having children and usefully raising them without the sanction of marriage. Allowing gays that sanctity can only strengthen marriage not destroy it. Gays are people with the same wants and needs as you the only difference is in their sexual preference they feel eros for the same sex not the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. V (716 comments) says:

    Jeez it’d be great to go to one of those committee hearings and give the bastards a malcolm-tucker-esk speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. MikeS (22 comments) says:

    She sounds like (and probably is) a brainwashed, mad as a hatter follower of some organised religion or other.

    Most of her submission is just drivel and the small number of her arguments that actually manage to make some sort of logical or rational sense contradict her viewpoint.

    @redbaiter – you obviously dislike and are opposed to those who you call liberals. (You also mistakenly confuse liberal with the left side of the political spectrum when it actually doesn’t take sides.)

    The word liberal stems from the Latin ‘liber’ which meant both book and freedom. It is also the root of the word library and the word liberty. Hence reading or gaining knowledge can set you on the path to freedom.So the word liberal literally means worthy of a free man, free from restraint, free in speech and action, free from prejudice and bigotry, open minded and open to new ideas or proposals of reform.

    Antonyms or opposites of liberal include uneducated, unintellectual, closed of heart, selfish, bigoted, racist, homophobic, close minded and against freedom of speech and religious expression. As we live in a free country, it would actually be anti New Zealand to be against a liberal.

    There is even a word used to describe the actions of a person like yourself who is anti liberal. It is liberticide, or the destruction of civil liberties.

    It would seem ‘redbaiter’ is typical of those who misuse the word liberal, purposely conditioning people to misunderstand the concept of the word. At the same time, we are slowly losing our liberties, libraries and our sense of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Mark (1,471 comments) says:

    The gay marriage bill will pass whether or not people object through the select committee process because Wall has the numbers

    There are going to be some interesting consequential arguments once the bill passes into law.

    Whether churches will be forced to perform marriages for gay couples, that could be interesting issue for Catholics for example.

    Gay adoption – it is hard to argue for the rights for gays to marry and not support the right for them to adopt.

    Will incestual marriages between gays be illegal? If so why? Surely the principal purpose of banning such relationships really isn’t an issue for gay couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    Mark, despite any assurances to the contrary we can expect if homosexual marriage becomes law then the church will be persecuted if they are not willing to perform such marriages. We can expect pastors and priests to be fined and jailed and we can expect churches to be fined out of existence. The homosexual lobby will brook no opposition. Sin always grows and expands if not resisted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    Nice of Griff to reveal something about his personal life. By his own admission he has been in some sort of relationship with a woman for 30 years while both having other partners on the side. And also raising children. So while not being married himself and not being monogamous himself he is telling us what marriage is and why we should support gay marriage and roundly abusing those who don’t agree with him.
    I wonder how many other supporters of gay marriage are like this? And like DPF actually. Never been married, make no effort to even try to be monogamous, yet are experts on marriage and abuse those who don’t support gay marriage. There is a rich irony there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Maybe the irony is that in an age when marriage choice is declining – delayed marriage, delayed parenting, divorce and re-marriage, de facto coupling, de facto couple parenthood – there is opposition to same sex couples being alllowed to do so. They just want to make the commitment and raise children within a marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. SPC (5,573 comments) says:

    Mark, that is not an issue.

    First, the churches are not required to marry anyone and never have been. Churches have in the past been able to restrict marriages to church members only – and also not marry a church member to a person outside the church. They have never been required to marry divorced church members – some churches do not marry divorced people. Why would there be an issue with them marrying a same sex couple, even if they were church members. They have always been able to decide who they give church marriages to.

    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.