Not being rushed through

March 4th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Some commenters and others have alleged that the Government is “rushing” the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill through . This is incorrect, and in fact isn’t even possible. The Government can control the order and timing of Government bills, but has no ability to speed up or slow down Members’ Bills – especially ones that are conscience issues.

The process and timing for Members’ Bills is controlled by Parliament’s Standing Orders. I thought it would be useful to take people through what these are, and how they have worked in this case.

  1. An MP submits a proposed Members’ Bill to the Clerk – SO 274. Louisa Wall did this on 1 June 2012
  2. If at any time less than eight Members’ Bills are awaiting a first reading, a ballot is triggered under SO 277(1). This occurred on Wed 27 June and Wed 25 July when the House had a Members’ Day and considered a number of other Members’ Bill that were awaiting first reading.
  3. Ballots were held on Thu 28 June and Thu 26 July. On 28 June four bills were selected out of 65 submitted and on 26 July five bills were selected out of 63 submitted. The Marriage (DOM) Bill was one of those selected on 26 July.
  4. The bill was introduced to Parliament that day – SO 277(3)
  5. The bill is set down for a first reading three sitting days later – SO 281(2), which is Thu 2 August 2012.
  6. In every two weeks of House sitting, Govt bills are debated on five of the six sitting days, and Members’ bills are given priority on every second Wednesday – SO 74(1). Generally there will be four and a half hours available.
  7. On Members’ Days, any local or private bills take precedence – SO 63. This means that a Members’ Bill will not be debated until any local or private bills scheduled for a reading or committee stage are dealt with first.
  8. If they get to Members’ Bills, any bills awaiting third reading, committee stage or second reading are given priority over a bill awaiting first reading. S70(1)
  9. There was a Members’ Day on 15 August which did not see the Marriage (DOM) Bill got to, but on Wed 29 August its first reading was held. There are 11 speeches lasting 65 minutes under Appendix A. The vote was 80-40.
  10. At the conclusion of the first reading, the MP in charge nominates a select committee for it to be referred to. SO 283(1). It was referred to the Government Administration Select Committee.
  11. The Select Committee is required under SO 291/1 to report back the bill within six months, which in this case is 28 February 2013. The only way this deadline can be extended is if Parliament unanimously (or near unanimously consents.
  12. The Select Committee called for submissions on 12 September, and allowed the normal six weeks until 26 October.
  13. They received 21,533 submissions with 10,487 in favour and 8,148 against. 2,898 of the submissions were individual ones, not form letters.
  14. The Select Committee starting hearing oral submissions on the 7th of November and the last submission was heard on 30th of January. They heard 220 submissions in person with hearings in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The final day for oral submissions was only 4 weeks before the bill had to be reported back.
  15. The Select Committee then considered the bill, the submissions, proposed amendments, had a report drafted and voted to accept the report. They reported back on 27 February 2013 – the second to last day possible.
  16. The bill is then set down under SO 292 for a second reading three sitting days later. This is Thu 6 March.
  17. The second reading will occur automatically on a Member’s Day once any local or private bills on the order paper are dealt with, and any committee stage or third readings of Members’ Bills. There are three such bills ahead of it on the Order Paper which will take place on Wed 13 March – the next Members’ Day. This is all automatic under – the Government gets no say on it.
  18. If the second reading passes on 13 March, then the committee stage is likely to be on Wed 27 March when amendments can be considered.
  19. After the committee stage, the third reading is likely to be Wed 17 April.

All this timetabling is basically automatic. The rules of Parliament are binding. Only with unanimous leave can dates or timing be changed. This is deliberate. It is important that the Executive only controls its own bills, but doesn’t control Parliament as a whole.

Tags: , , ,

112 Responses to “Not being rushed through”

  1. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    They received 21,533 submissions with 10,487 in favour and 8,148 against. 2,898 of the submissions were individual ones, not form letters.

    Note that 10,487 (for) + 8,148 (against) = 18,635 (all the non-unique submissions).
    21,533 – 18,635 = 2,898 were individual ones, not form letters, so for and against does not include this total.

    Looks like you got these figures from a Herald article, which is not the same as the figures from the Ministry of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Now compare it to other member’s bills heard in the weeks before, DPF, and other bills currently before the Government administration committee.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    As a matter of interest, Graeme, what are your thoughts on pro forma/form letter submissions, whether pro or anti equality? Not to mention Family First’s rather peculiar views on judicial objectivity and neutrality:

    http://familyfirst.org.nz/2013/03/coroner-had-attacked-gay-marriage/

    Doesn’t seem to have occurred to Bobricia McCrosklett that Chris Finlayson opposes marriage equality, does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Great post david.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog – the gay marriage blog.

    I am almost glad it is proceeding rather quickly (even if it is not being ‘rushed’) because it’s passing might mean we get a brief reprieve from DPF and WO constantly banging on about gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    CG – you are a paragon of why completely giving one over to identity politcs risks turning oneself into a complete bore.

    Chris Finlayson can only be said to oppose ‘Marriage Equality’ in the sense that Orwell described in ‘Politics and the English Language’. To wit, the A-Gs actual position is that he opposes official recognition of marriage altogether. I don’t agree with that view but, if anything, it’s the most ‘equal’ proposal of all. After all, it represents the equal exclusion of all relationship from the definition of marriage – including ‘out’ groups that you are prejudiced against: polygamous, polyamorous, consanguineous etc.

    The characterisation of that as opposing something called ‘Marriage Equality’ only works if one accepts you (and the media’s) lame attempt to frame the terms of the debate so that anybody you is against treating different things differently is somehow against ‘equality’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,920 comments) says:

    Only 666 days left before sodomy is compulsory in New Zealand! :twisted:

    Whatever will my wife and I do once our marriage is “redefined”? This really really affects us! :shock:

    The end is nigh! The end is nigh!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    “Some commenters and others have alleged that the Government is “rushing” the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill through Parliament.”

    Not really. More people are concerned with the utter fraud that is the “Select Committee” and its stacking with proponents rather than objective observers, and its bullying of and attacks on those citizens who appear before it and voice anti opinions.

    Kevin Hague and Louisa Wall, two extreme left homosexuals are the ones deciding on this?

    The whole process is a fraud and a farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    RRM – I agree with you. I think SSM is conceptually suspect and reflects an ahistorical (and probably anomalous) view of what marriage is and is designed to do.

    However, apart from the odd unforseen legal messes that will inevitably result from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (like that messed up child custody case in America that nobody ever talks about) I don’t think the direct effects will be that great. What we are talking about here – how many gay couples will actually want to get married?

    If we look past the media image we see we are talking about a minority within a tiny minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    More double speak from the Ministry of Love .
    I also will be considering what marriage means if this peice of rubbish is passed.
    Divorce is a possibility. Marriiage in Catholic Church is another

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    What we are talking about here – how many gay couples will actually want to get married?

    If we look past the media image we see we are talking about a minority within a tiny minority.

    But that tiny minority is going to bring western civilisation to it’s knees by marrying each other!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Eszett…is that an oblique reference to the compromising position(s) former Scottish Catholic Cardinal Keith O’Brien (an opponent of marriage equality) seems to have engaged in when several priests stated that he’d sexually harrassed them earlier in his career?

    Oh look- several US religious groups of diverse faiths have backed marriage equality :)

    In the United States, an unprecedented interfaith alliance has mobilised in support of marriage equality. It includes the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other prominent US Jewish organisations such as the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of Reform Judaism, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Rabbis for Human Rights North America and the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism. Other allies include the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Hindu American Foundation, The Japanese American Citizens League, Lutherans Concerned North America, the Metropolitan Community Church, People for the American Way Foundation, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation.

    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/us-religious-groups-file-legal-briefs-support-marriage-equality030313

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Straw man, much?

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that SSM is directly going to affect much of anything – apart from cases like Miller v Jenkins. Some people, and I am one of them, believe that SSM are symptoms of deeper problems within our civilisation – going hand in hand with easy divorce, identity politics, discounting traditions and the subordination of children to adult happiness (reflected, for example, in lower birth rates).

    That’s the argument against gay marriage. I have never had a problem with gay people doing what they want in their private lives. Never have, never will – whether gay marriage is passed or not. I am tolerant.

    But it’s easier to mischaracterise opposition as unthinking bigotry – especially if all you’re really interested in is your own moral self-display.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    I see Lucia is with us…the recently resigned Cardinal O’Brien has said “some of my sexual conduct was unacceptable”…When I last checked, Catholic clergy weren’t supposed to have ANY sexual conduct – including masturbation – so his statement is surely at the very least tatulogy, and in fact utter bullshit?

    What say you, defender of the BVM, and the Holy Mother Church in all her majesty?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    Remember people, just as in the UK, there is a large sector of the voters who accuse David Cameron and the Conservatives of betraying them, so the same allegation can be leveled at John Key and National.

    Allowing this country to be led by the nose by two extreme left Progressives. One (Kevin Hague) who has never been elected and who has apparently never had a real job in his life.

    John Key and National are spitting upon the feelings of voters who are concerned about this, and weakly letting totally false propaganda (like “marriage equality”) drive the argument.

    There is only one way that you can express your contempt at the cowardice of the National Party and that is vote for the Conservative Party.

    Craig is by no means perfect (for example he is wrong on asset sales) but he offers a welcome alternative to the race based Maori Party and their “Constitutional Review. (Another similar hoax perpetrated by John Key and National).

    Force National to dump its liberal core, those who have utterly betrayed the founding statement of the party, and are driven by polls rather than principle, and then the party may be worth voting for in coming elections.

    If you want the extreme left and/ or racists to continue to decide the direction of our country then keep voting for National in its present form.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    And I don’t have any problems with religious individuals worshipping how they wish within particular institutions of worship. I just object to matters of private spirituality and belief being imposed on me against my will, especially when they are not consensual social values. And how is easy divorce correlated to marriage equality? My own parents have been married for fifty seven years. As for ‘identity politics,’ how is religious denominational identity not a form of identity politics in itself? And surely being conservative (or centre-right) is about being selective about what is to be conserved and what is harmful and destructive to others and needs to be discarded?

    And I do not dismiss opponents of marriage equality as unthinking bigots. I regard them as proponents of a questionable sectarian religious philosophical tradition whose imposition is an attack on the meaningful religious freedom of others and faith/state seperation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    David Garret- once a commie always a commie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Reddy…Colin Craig disagrees with the government on a core government fiscal policy, namely asset sales. He is also reluctant to specify what fiscal policy he would substitute for it. Under no circumstances should National entertain any idea of a coalition with a possibly unelectable fundamentalist microparty like his Conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. nasska (11,503 comments) says:

    RRM

    …”Only 666 days left before sodomy is compulsory in New Zealand”…..

    I guess you’ll have to ‘man up’ & accept the inevitable. Also note that there are only 662 shopping days left in which to obtain your supplies of KY Jelly & mutton fat.

    Don’t leave it until the last minute & get caught unprepared. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Good morning Russell! Just what exactly does being a supposed communist have to do with Cardinal O’Brien’s sexual misconduct?

    I meant to ask you, how many commie killing Korean war vets are there in Tauranga? Have you met them all, and encouraged them to tell of their bloodthirsty exploits on the Korean peninsula sixty years ago? Do any of them still stay in the Mt Maunganui RSA when they see you coming?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    CG- So you prefer National continues its alliance with the racist Maori Party and its “Constitutional Review”, a destructive country splitting business that will have effects on our society that are far reaching and permanent?

    You want to sell out the country to separatists just so you can have your fake marriages accepted as legal?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Cardinal O’Brien might as well have said “all my sexual partners were over the age of consent” !!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    I’m puzzeled, what exactly does a Scottish Cardinal’s alleged sexual peccadillos from more than thirty years ago have to do with a private members bill currently before Parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Ah…”alleged” means “not yet proven” Andrei… since O’Brien has admitted to “unacceptable sexual conduct” the word alleged doesnt apply…better sit this one out old boy…

    But lets set that to one side…the two are connected because of the Holy Mother Church’s propensity to meddle in matters secular, and its opposition to our gay brothers marrying….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    Yet the Marxist toady and troll Garret has no problem with the government interfering in the lives of Christian citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    “marxist toady” !! Have you had this morning’s meds Russell? They are the ones in the little box marked “MONDAY – AM”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    How is your life being interfered with as a Christian citizen? Unless you’re a flamer, Redbaiter, it doesn’t affect you at all :P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “… what exactly does a Scottish Cardinal’s alleged sexual peccadillos from more than thirty years ago have to do with a private members bill currently before Parliament.”

    It has everything to do with it if you believe that a “Tu Quoque” is somehow a logical argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that SSM is directly going to affect much of anything

    Surely you are taking the piss.
    Have you been reading this blog, in particular posts by andrei, fletch, lucia, harriet, scott, et al. on this topic.
    Or Family First’s regular as clockwork posts on the evils of SSM? (Funny, no one ever complains that they post too much on SSM and yet they have probably done more posts than DPF has)

    According to them only thermonuclear warfare would have a more devastating effect than gay marriage. (And they are probably not certain about that either)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,920 comments) says:

    Stop being so Marxist DG.

    :lol: LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    But lets set that to one side…the two are connected because of the Holy Mother Church’s propensity to meddle in matters secular, and its opposition to our gay brothers marrying….

    I am not at all sure why you think the Church should not have a voice in public discourse, David Garrett.

    In our “pluralistic” society all sorts of people raise their voices on matters of public policy, including those of self appointed activist groups with interests in whatever matter is under discussion.

    Nobody seeks to deny ASH’s “propensity to meddle in matters secular” for example when it comes to discussion of one of the greatest sins in the canon secular liberalism, the indulgence in tobacco.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    RRM: He’s a hoot isnt he?!

    Andrei: Let’s get back to this “alleged” thingie, and Cardinal O’Brien’s admitted “sexual conduct”…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Another post this ‘not being rushed’

    Methinks DPF protest too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Reddy- at least the Maori Party is a stable coalition partner for National. United Future and ACT are four thousand or so votes away from oblivion on their current heading. And how does National know that the Con Party would sign up to a centre-right coalition if it (quite responsibly) refused to be held to successive nine million dollar ransoms on a range of potty populist plebiscites? Becuase that’s how much the probelting activists got to hold their one on Section 59 Repeal. That money needs to be reserved for public health and education expenditure, not the posturing of fringe sectarian and sectional unrepresentative interest groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    It’s true, at least the Cardinal’s partners were over the age of consent, although as it was sexual harrassment according to the priestly complainants, it was some distance below the standard of conduct that O’Brien acknowledged the church expects of its hierarchy. As for the general public however…. hee hee hee :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Andrei: No one is saying that religious institutions should not have a say in public policy, merely that given current democratic practises, such as meaningful religious freedom and freedom from religious compulsion, human rights, civil liberties and faith/state seperation, they should expect critical analysis and evidence-based evaluation of their public policy claims. Which don’t stack up insofar as the Christian Right is concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “….Whatever will my wife and I do once our marriage is “redefined”? This really really affects us!…”

    You’ll become the ‘wife’ RMM.

    You posted gay porn on GD one Saturday night in late Oct or Nov.

    And JUST last week you said you had a school age child and a younger one.

    There is clearly something already wrong in your household and Marriage RMM!

    Sad really when kids are involved!

    BTW. When you posted YOUR porn either nasska or Kea commented – “That’s sick RMM.”

    Come on out of YOUR closet RMM!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    CG- So that’s a yes then.

    That’s what I have grown to dislike about homosexuals.

    Its always all about them, and here are you, someone who has always identified as a prize narcissist, ready to rush to embrace racism and separatism, and send the country to hell in a hand basket, just so you can have your petty fake marriages, and use government to force Christians to jump through your progressive hoops.

    In the past I supported the live and let live view on queers, but with the hatred and bigotry and unwillingness to understand that I have seen from them on the marriage redefinition issue, and the decadent narcissism of such events as the hero parade and big day out, and your infiltration of our education system and our government, and your constant use of propaganda to spread entirely false concepts, I have changed my views.

    Today, I just don’t like you. Call it bigotry if you like, but I am just sick of you queers and your dishonesty, your statism and your “me me me” bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    No one is saying that religious institutions

    ChardonnayGuy,

    David Garrett did, he said the Church should not “meddle in matters secular” and then tried to divert into discussion of a a Cardinals supposed indescretions of long ago even though you would think that he might have some understanding of how youthful mistakes might come back to haunt one in later life.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,305) Says:
    March 4th, 2013 at 10:45 am
    Ah…”alleged” means “not yet proven” Andrei… since O’Brien has admitted to “unacceptable sexual conduct” the word alleged doesnt apply…better sit this one out old boy…

    But lets set that to one side…the two are connected because of the Holy Mother Church’s propensity to meddle in matters secular, and its opposition to our gay brothers marrying….

    David
    To be fair the Marriage amendment bill hits at one of the Catholic Church’s core beliefs so it would surely voicing their concerns and opposition to the bill is to be expected. Don’t necessarily see that as meddling in secular affairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,920 comments) says:

    Harriet:
    You posted gay porn on GD one Saturday night in late Oct or Nov.

    It was clearly a memorable day for you! Pleased to be of service ;-)

    Harriet:
    And JUST last week you said you had a school age child and a younger one.
    There is clearly something already wrong in your household and Marriage RMM!
    Sad really when kids are involved!

    What a piece of shit you are :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    My statism, Reddy?! Given that Gordon Copeland tried to pre-emptively ban marriage equality through mangling the Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights back in 2005, that one of the chief objectives of the US National Organisation for Marriage is a “Federal Marriage Amendment” to pre-emptively prohibit marriage equality and that Australia pandered to its fundies during the Howard error by making federal marriage law straights only, your grasp of such matters is somewhat Orwellian to say the least!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy at 11:17 am –

    Andrei: No one is saying that religious institutions should not have a say in public policy …

    Actually, that’s exactly what a lot of people are saying, CG.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    The consequential step of this law passing is gay adoption. Conservative I may be but this is a step too far. Kids who are adopted have enough issues to deal with without going through their lives justifying the lifestyle choice of their parents. Still this will again be about gay rights and have little to do with children’s rights and anyone who opposes such a law change will be bigoted homophobes.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Mark: I was just playing with Andrei, who was trying to avoid confronting his use of “alleged” when the (not so) good Cardinal has admitted “unacceptable sexual conduct”…

    Regular viewers will be aware that on this one, I am actually on the side of the God botherers..”gay marriage” is an abomination – in my sight, as well as that of God’s, so we are told….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    DPF: The Government has no ability to speed up or slow down Members’ Bills – especially ones that are conscience issues.

    DPF arguing that National really can’t do anything again. It’s all Labour’s fault!!

    Can we just sack John Key? The man can’t do anything, so why have him as PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    CG – I think the subtleties of the statism argument are lost on you.

    It reflects a fundamental divide between natural law and positivist philosophies.

    If you are a relativist and believe that, through democratic consent, the State is the absolute arbiter of the law – with absolute sovereignty in all spheres of reality – then you are the “Orwellian” one (or the adherent to The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, or whatever). Sucks to be you if you are an unfashionable minority, of course.

    However, if you believe that the State is just one of many institutions that informs and maintains norms and mores – and that laws contrary to natural law lack legitimacy – then I would say you are less of a statist. You might never favour gay marriage, but you won’t join in a program to incincerate them if that happens to become the popular thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    “My statism, Reddy?!”

    That is right.

    Queers have infiltrated government not with the idea of working for everybody, but for the selfish pursuance of their sexually directed politicial activities.

    Queers have infiltrated the Dept of Education, not for the betterment of education overall, but to push propaganda to school children seeking to persuade them, when they are naive and youthful (so cowardly) that homosexuality is “normal”.

    Queers now seek to use government to force Christians to accept a re-definition of traditional marriage, and will after that introduce legislation to force all people to subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is “normal”, and prosecute those who resist, or refuse to fall into line.

    You seek government funding to underpin propaganda events like the Hero Parade, where once again, in complete disregard for the sanctity of childhood, you cavort in your self indulgent decadence and demand widespread approval for your actions, condemning those who dare express disapproval as bigots and haters.

    In terms of modern day statism and propaganda, its hard to decide who most resemble Hitler’s Brownshirts, the Green Party of the homosexual movement.

    Don’t tell me your libertarians and traditional liberals. You’re typical left wing/ Marxist creeps who whether you know it or not, buy into the progressive concept that the way forward is to totally destroy the old and rebuild it as your progressive religion dictates. And you use government (and especially weak politically confused dupes like John Key and the National party, or the confirmed Marxists that are the Labour Party) as your main vehicle to do this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Ah, reddy, gay-lefty conspiracy theories combined with Godwin. Bless.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    Pointless trolling Eggshit is actually an improvement on your usual hollow arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Cato (265) Says:
    March 4th, 2013 at 11:40 am
    CG – I think the subtleties of the statism argument are lost on you.

    It reflects a fundamental divide between natural law and positivist philosophies.

    If you are a relativist and believe that, through democratic consent, the State is the absolute arbiter of the law – with absolute sovereignty in all spheres of reality – then you are the “Orwellian” one (or the adherent to The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, or whatever). Sucks to be you if you are an unfashionable minority, of course.

    However, if you believe that the State is just one of many institutions that informs and maintains norms and mores – and that laws contrary to natural law lack legitimacy – then I would say you are less of a statist. You might never favour gay marriage, but you won’t join in a program to incincerate them if that happens to become the popular thing to do.

    Cato, once again, descending into the realm of pseudo-intellectual psychobabble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    eszett: When you have such a feverish mind that I can be seen as a “marxist toady” anything is possible! He appears to be settling though…the much put upon Mrs Russell has presumably got him to take this morning’s pills…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (2,189) Says:
    March 4th, 2013 at 11:52 am
    Pointless trolling Eggshit is actually an improvement on your usual hollow arguments.

    I’ll take that as a compliment from the master of trolling and psychedelic rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “Natural law”

    “Positivism”

    Not well known schools of jurisprudential thought understood by most but – “psychobabble”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Maybe he did take his pills, David, just the wrong ones.
    Makes him sound like the sequel to The sixth sense: I see gay marxists everywhere!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    Well what a bizarre collection of arguments for denying people the opportunity to be happy (or unhappy).

    Organised religion has absolutely no say in a secular democracy, though of course misguided members of such cults are welcome to enter the public discourse.

    I’m still trying to reconcile the assertion that Gay marriage is such a huge deal with the assertion that it’s only pandering to the smallest of minorities,

    or that the value of my “traditional” marriage is somehow undermined when it affects my rights not a bit,

    or that the institution is somehow threatened by more people wishing to enter into it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    alloytoo what does a piece of paper issued by the Government have to do with peoples happiness or lack thereof?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @Andrei

    What does a gay couple’s receipt of said piece of paper have to do with you at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Andrei: You keep referring to the Cardinal’s “alleged” and “supposed” indiscretions…He has ADMITTED them mate! They are no longer alleged OR supposed…HE said he did it!

    But the word you seek does start with “A”….the are his “acknowledged indiscretions”…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Hmm.

    ChardonnayGuy says “No one is saying that religious institutions should not have a say in public policy”

    alloytoo says “Organised religion has absolutely no say in a secular democracy”

    Could you two please work out who is right, then let us know? Thanks.

    PS: Oh, I see that alloytoo goes on to graciously say “though of course misguided members of such cults are welcome to enter the public discourse.”

    So, we have no say in a democracy (not sure who decided it’s secular, but of course I’m sure that my rights to live my life as a Christian aren’t being denied here), but we’re still welcome to enter the public discourse. Mighty generous of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    David Garret – I just love it when you comment on ecclesial affairs. After all, you went to a Catholic school when you were a pre-teen and talked to a Marist Brother – so you are quite entitled, as you are wont to do – your expert knowledge on all things RCC. We have had the benefit on your deep knowledge of the theology of purgatory and the doctrine of invincible ignorance.

    But in this case, we are not dealing with religion as such. Instead, O’Brien was accused of doing some particular things by particular people. O’Brien contested these allegations but has since conceded that there are ‘sexual failings’ in his past. He hasn’t really copped to much in terms of specifics.

    Does that mean that he has admitted to every single alleged incident and every single characterisation of such incidents? Does his generic admission imply guilt in respect of every accusation?

    Can you discern the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Could you two please work out who is right, then let us know? Thanks.

    It’s secular-progressivism / liberalism. No one said it is supposed to make sense !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “….Today, I just don’t like you. Call it bigotry if you like, but I am just sick of you queers and your dishonesty, your statism and your “me me me” bullshit….”

    Quite right.

    Gays have the same fertility rates as hetrosexuals.

    If 4 leso’s and 4 gayboys, or for that matter 40 lesos and 40 gayboys were the last people on earth they would forgo their stupid lie of being born that way and have babies.

    Why? Because they are human and cheerish life. They wouldn’t want to see mankind end because of a LIE!

    Not only that, but they would nuture those children in what we NOW call a Marriage. The mother would feed and cuddle that baby while the father would get food. The baby boys would follow in what their fathers do and the girls in what their mothers do.

    Or in other words, if man was asexual and babies were found under cabbages, we would never ever have what we know as Marriage.

    Anybody in the NZ parliment that thinks that gay relationships are equal to hetrosexual relationships – is simply fucked in the head.

    Or at best a gullible fool! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    I meant to add:

    If gay want to get Married – then they should change ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    “Ecclesial affairs”…now there’s a new one….ecclesiastical perhaps? When using ‘big words’ to try and be impressive, it’s always a good idea to make sure they are the correct word(s) for the context, and spelled correctly…

    NO Cato, he has NOT confessed to ‘sexual failings’ ….he is quoted as saying “…my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest…”

    The standards of “sexual conduct” expected of him as a priest is that is IS no sexual conduct, not even in the privacy of his cell!

    To quote you, can you “discern” where you have erred my son?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    O’Brien was the leader of the Catholic church.
    He indoctrinated follow priest into the delights of catholic bum sex.

    Is this important to the debate over gay rights?

    Only in so much as Catholics are a proven bunch of bumfuckers who do not have the right to dictate to others if they do not follow the catholic faith in the institutional raping of arseholes. The Catholic leadership is a bunch of bum fucking hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. nasska (11,503 comments) says:

    …”If gay (sic)want to get Married – then they should change”…

    Come on out of your cave & face the new world Harriet….in time you’ll probably get to enjoy it. :)

    …“Some men are born sodomites, some achieve sodomy, and some have sodomy thrust upon them…”
    ― Aleister Crowley, The Scented Garden Of Abdullah The Satirist Of Shiraz

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    If homosexuality isn’t natural, why does it appear in nature?

    Black widow spider females often eat their partner after mating but wouldn’t you need to be rather ardently feminist to consider sexual cannibalism natural? – and for survival of not only the fittest, but of anything, you’d need to be confident of having more than one offspring?
    But then, following nature and its implied naturalness, are true homosexuals fit for survival?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    Not being rushed through. They only listened to about 1% of the submissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ecclesial – relating to a church or denomination.

    Ecclesiastical – synonym of Ecclesial.

    Your error is simple – and unaffected by my use of ‘failings’ instead of misconduct. That is, has he admitted to any of the specific accusations against him or just to vague and unspecified shortcomings?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    nasska, I think you meant to say …. “and some have sodomy thrust up them”

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Cato- I’m at a loss to discern what standpoint you’re articulating from. Is it objectivist libertarian a la pill-popping hypercapitalist doyenne Ayn Rand? If so, surely you realise that there are a range of different versions of objectivism, not all of which agree with La Maitresse about the iniquity of homosexuality according to ‘natural law’ dogma. Some variants are quite convivial with diverse sexual orientations.

    And Griff, in terms of conservative Catholic hypocrisy, not all of them do the deed with other males, or engage in same-sex child rape. Some are predisposed toward preying on women, or prepubescent girls. Even some female conservative Catholics, in the case of a wretched female conCath lawyer named Joan Biron, who allowed her daughter to be sexually abused by two men and filmed it. Ugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @graham

    A secular dispensation guarantees your right to freedom of religion, it also guarantees others the same rights, including the right to no religion.

    What you’re really bitching about is your lack of religious privilage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Cato: If you can spin “my sexual conduct was unacceptable” – which he is quoted as saying – as referring to “vague and unspecified shortcomings”, then you have clearly learned to spin with the best of them…

    “ecclesial”….well there you go…if one has an open mind, one learns something new every day…and so much easier to spell than its synonym!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “…..Don’t tell me your libertarians and traditional liberals. You’re typical left wing/ Marxist creeps who whether you know it or not, buy into the progressive concept that the way forward is to totally destroy the old and rebuild it as your progressive religion dictates. And you use government (and especially weak politically confused dupes like John Key and the National party, or the confirmed Marxists that are the Labour Party) as your main vehicle to do this…..”

    Quite right Redbaiter!

    Gay parenting and sperm/egg/womb ‘donation’ ?

    The new ‘wonderful family’ is a community project !

    It is metaphysicly impossable for gays to be ‘parents’ no matter what laws are passed in what used to be: Parliment – where the maturity of NZers was once reflected! :cool:

    These flaccid metrosexual males in National & Labour will also fund the Kylie Minogue Dunce Party to be held in the ruins of NZ society after the Marxists have taken their ‘progressive jackhammers’ to it’s foundations.

    But long before that the Conservatives will take the truth to those well down on National and Labour’s party lists.

    50% of NZers don’t want gay marriage and more than 70% are disgusted wiith the thought of gay ‘parenting’ -what ever form that takes.

    Conservatives and those who believe in the true meaning of Marriage and parenting have a chance to become the king makers in NZ!

    In summary, after 40 yrs of ‘progressives’ and the progressive cost of welfare in NZ – the Conservatives are now the counter culture. And that ‘counter cultural movement’ is already raiseing it’s responsable head in the Universities:

    “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare!”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    CG – I guess that’s your problem. I don’t see myself as an “Objectivist” or as Gay or as anything else – other than a reasoning human being who believes that there are limits to the powers of human reason. Presently I think that there exists a natural order that can be discerned, if not fully articulated, by the distilled experience of successive human generations. If you disagree with that, disagree with that.

    You might buy into identity politics – I don’t and I’m not oblige to.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    DG, the point – unanswered by you – is that specific allegations were made against Card O’Brien. He denied those specific allegations before admitting to unspecified misconduct. Think back to the formal logic component of your Evidence lectures. How is a generic admission also an admission of specific incidents?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    ” is that specific allegations were made against Card O’Brien. He denied those specific allegations before admitting to unspecified misconduct”

    Lol

    This deviant lived his whole life trying to victimize arse fuckers from a position of power that he used to fuck arseholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “….But then, following nature and its implied naturalness, are true homosexuals fit for survival?…”

    Nope.

    Look at what the gay community has achieved since gay law reform:

    2 dozen niteclubs.
    1 dozen gay bath houses.
    1 Kylie Minogue Fan Club.
    1 periodical street parade of immature males and females.

    That’s the gaybourhood — nothing what soever!

    And that is why they want to get Married: To ‘feel’ like normal humans.

    They should just grow up instead of dragging the rest of society down the rabbit hole. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Griff –

    How charming. Presumably you are in favour of gay marriage despite your dehumanising characterisation of gay people as a— f——-? What is a statement like that if not evidence that so much of this debate has as much to do with crude libertinism as it does for concern for human dignity (misguided or not).

    For the life of me, I still can’t fathom what Card. O’Brien has to do with it. He behaved badly – so? Al Gore has a big house and a private jet. Does it follow that global warming isn’t occuring?

    The fallacious appeal to hypocrisy – constantly indulged in – just establishes that you are motivated as much by animus against the Church. I disagree with DPF on this policy (for now) but I have never found him to be disrespectful towards those who disagree with him (except in the occasional, condescending way).

    I suggest that if all you want to do is engage in vulgar know-nothingism then there are more suited blogs for you to frequent. One of them is very popular.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Cato: I have just looked outside…despite being shortly after noon, it’s very dark, and I can see all the stars in God’s heavens. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I am quite sure it is in fact the middle of the night.

    Arguing with you is like trying to pin down a blancmange…so I will do some billable work at 300 per instead…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I’ll take that as an insult.

    Laterz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    We have had months of the catholic church preaching anti gay sentiment on KB. I do not believe that any have the right to dictate how consenting adults chose to live their lives. That I troll on threads such as this is because there is no rational debate only endless bigotry by the likes of Andrei harryit et.al.

    The church has systematically abused those in its care for hundreds of years. This abuse has been hidden from the light of day by deliberate policy of the church. To now claim that the church has any morals is far from the truth. It is corrupt beyond belief and should be disbanded and the billions of dollars it has stolen under false pretense returned to society at large.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Oh dear David Garrett, when one has one’s arse handed to oneself on a plate (maybe not appropriate metaphor to use here with Griff’s little foam spraying attacks), one should be perhaps a tad more gracious in conceding it. After all, if you make the focal point of your attack on another a “grammar nazi” approach to spelling, it underlines the poverty of your argument when that spelling is shown to be legitimate.

    Graham, you should feel privileged to receive the “full monty” treatment, if you do not agree with your “betters” on this matter of “marriage equality” then you are 1) a bigot (sorry, make that a BIGOT), 2) ignorant or in some way in thrall to outdated or otherwise unsavoury ideas, and 3) probably a closet homosexual, as if that should be an insult of some sort.

    It is however rather sad to see KB go down the Cameron Slater road to freedom of speech…you can say anything you like as long as you agree with me. “Marriage Equality” is of course a totally dishonest piece of propaganda labelling, allowing centrists like David to climb aboard the bandwagon. It is merely a form of “some things are more equal than others” complete with the bad-mouthing of critics when they point out (or attempt to) that equal means equal.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    alloytoo:

    I have to be honest, I don’t think that I, personally, have bitched about “my lack of religious privilege”. But if you care to point out where I have, I’ll take that on-board.

    You are correct when you say “others have the right to no religion”. Meaning, presumably, that they have the right not to have religion forced on them. But I would like to think that Christians have the right, in a democracy, to at least have their point of view heard. If the majority then chooses to dismiss that point of view, so be it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    “The Catholic leadership is a bunch of bum fucking hypocrites.”

    Christians are a net positive to society, and I’d support them any day over a repugnant and cowardly secular progressive like yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Jim (398 comments) says:

    Cato, that is the problem with this bill, and identity politics in general. There is no middle ground. If you’re not with them, you’re automatically seen as agin them.

    Attempt to make a reasoned argument based upon what the real drivers for “[re]Definition of Marriage” are and people will be trying to see which frame fits your line of reasoning.

    For that reason I have found myself opposed to this bill. Not because I have any problem with same-sex couples, but because I see this bill as totally unnecessary theatre. Victory will be hollow. Those that don’t see same-sex couples as legitimate still won’t. Some of those that didn’t care will be put off by the the increasingly tenuous and flimsy “victim cards” being played.

    I wonder if this polarising argument will actually serve to strengthen the traditional view of marriage. If that becomes true then this will be a huge own-goal for those that pushed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Really? Boy, I didn’t think this blog – popular though it is in the local context – was frequented by “the Catholic Church.” I guess Andrei must be the psuedonym for Benefict XVI and Harriet must be Cardinal Burke in disguise.

    I am a Catholic. I have never hated someone because they are gay – and I don’t think I ever will. I agree that the Church has teaching authority over faith and morals I accept that this is a minority view in the modern West. I think that the Catholic Church has to convince people by means of suasion rather than force. I suggest that you would not find a single prelate in the Roman Curia who thinks that gay people should be persecuted – but that is a different thing to official recognition of gay relationships as marriage despite this being contrary to immemorial and universal norms.

    As for the sex abuse scandal. Yeah – it horrifies me. I am ashamed of the prelates who covered it up and I am ashamed of the parents who never reported it to the civil authorities (and why the latter get a free pass I’ll never know).

    This doesn’t mean I hate the Church, though, because I am reasonable enough to know that the truth or untruth of the Catholic Church is not predicated on the moral impeccablness of its officers. I understand my religion, so I know that the teaching authority is defined negatively, not positively on the basis of the holiness of Churchmen.

    I think the Allied Powers committed war crimes in Europe – that doesn’t mean I reject the condemnation of the holocaust.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “The Catholic leadership is a bunch of bum fucking hypocrites.”

    Parliment is full of hypocrites who shouldn’t be believed in.

    They took Orwell’s 1984 not as a warning, but use it as a manual. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    Soooooo
    reddy supports bumfucking hypocrisy.
    Why am I not surprised?
    Hard hat, chaps and stilettos reddy the arse bandit of the burbs.

    Still at lest CCCP has not had the inevitable sordid tales of kiddy fiddling bum sex see the light of day…………. Yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Only in so much as Catholics are a proven bunch of bumfuckers who do not have the right to dictate to others if they do not follow the catholic faith in the institutional raping of arseholes

    What proportion of the world’s billion+ Catholics are ‘a proven bunch of bumfuckers’ there Griff? You’ll need a few decimal places, but in your own time….

    Further, and based on your in-depth analysis, are we to assume that once one Police officer has been charged with speeding that no police officer is thereafter permitted to enforce that law?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Griff – please tell me which of these are true:

    a) You have no views on morals because you have not lived an impeccable life;
    b) Your views on morals are correct because you have lived an impeccable life; or
    c) You have not lived an impeccable life, but you do hold views on morals (as you see them) because the truth of an argument is not conditional upon its proponent acting consistently with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kenny (21 comments) says:

    Other Members’ bills are not being rammed through at such speed. Some of these bills are being considered by the same Select Committee. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill was introduced a month before the same-sex marriage bill, and yet the Select Committee report is not due until August 2013. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill also had its first reading a month before the same-sex marriage bill, yet the report is not due until the end of July. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill – a government bill also being considered by the Government Administration Select Committee – has 12 months for the Select Committee to consider. Yet the same-sex marriage bill has just six months to consider 20,000-plus submissions, hear oral submissions, and report back.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Harriet (4,971 comments) says:

    “….I am ashamed of the prelates who covered it up and I am ashamed of the parents who never reported it to the civil authorities (and why the latter get a free pass I’ll never know)….”

    That’s true.

    In the US, the average length of time between the time of abuse and when the compliant against Priests was laid – was 30 YEARS!

    The bell curve showing when abuse was at it’s highest was in the late 60’s, early 70’s. Most who committed abuse at that time [looking at the bell curve of offending Priests ages] were Priests who were just out of the seminary.

    It was a time when not just abuse by Priests was hushed up, but all abuse by ‘authority figures’ was hushed up – and those who were seminarians were just as likely to have been victims of abuse as children by others than ‘just’ priests.

    Also a time when their 20 yld age group were all involved in the ‘rights movements’ -the sexual revolution- and 1969 was also the year of the Stonewall Uprising. Males in their 20’s are at their ‘sexual peak’ and growing up in an age group who were at that time ‘promoting’ sex, the seminarians instead were becoming Priests – gay sex most probably was then already practised by some -before- they became seminarians. It was at a time when gays were ‘hiding’ their sex as you could be sent to mental institutions and face chemical castration, lobotomys, and electro treatment. The seminary may have ‘looked’ like a place of ‘refuge’ to some gays.

    Sex offending by Catholic Priests in the 60’s is an abberation if you look at the last 20 yrs – there is virtually none!

    Gay sex acts are no longer popular by what could only be described as ‘Dubious Priests’. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. RRM (9,920 comments) says:

    the decadent narcissism of such events as the hero parade and big day out

    Funny, I thought the Big Day Out was a rock music festival…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Harriet – whatever the reasons – it was completely unacceptable. I don’t think it even helps to try to ‘explain’ what was clearly gross manifestations of sin.

    But if we are in a judgmental mood – this is something I think about a lot. I believe in the teaching authority of the Church. If it’s part of the faith – then I agree that debate has ended. People say I am a sheep for that reason – and I guess that’s right.

    But if my son had been abused by my Parish Priest, then I wouldn’t forget the whole thing just because some Bishop said to. I would go to the Police and lay a complaint. I would make sure that was pursued. Yet, to my knowledge, those parents who did otherwise have never been held accountable.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @graham

    “But I would like to think that Christians have the right, in a democracy, to at least have their point of view heard.”

    Funny, I thought I said that, you even quoted me on it.

    If you really feel the need to express a point of view grounded in the bronze age, go for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Redbaiter (8,823 comments) says:

    Other Members’ bills are not being rammed through at such speed. Some of these bills are being considered by the same Select Committee. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill was introduced a month before the same-sex marriage bill, and yet the Select Committee report is not due until August 2013. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill also had its first reading a month before the same-sex marriage bill, yet the report is not due until the end of July. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill – a government bill also being considered by the Government Administration Select Committee – has 12 months for the Select Committee to consider. Yet the same-sex marriage bill has just six months to consider 20,000-plus submissions, hear oral submissions, and report back.

    Really good information Kenny.

    SO WHAT SAY YOU MR. FARRAR??

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Red,

    The procedures of Parliament are such that a motion to shorten or elongate the time a bill is to be considered by a Select Committee has to be introduced as part of the First Reading. (Actually by the mover – Lousia Wall in this case – IIRC.)

    Thus the time spent by the Select Committee was agreed by Parliament under the conscience vote for the First Reading. The govt had no hand in this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Fletch (6,387 comments) says:

    Whenever anyone here says something to the effect that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, or multiple partners, we get shouted down and told the very idea is ridiculous – yet the very thing has been put forward in Australia – by a group whose leaders are also part of the Greens.

    Someone just pointed this blog post by Andrew Bolt on the Herald Sun page regarding what Liberal Senator Cory Bernadi said –

    Senator Cory Bernardi was last year pilloried:

    LIBERAL senator Cory Bernardi says he decided to resign as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s parliamentary secretary for the good of the Coalition…

    Speaking on a gay marriage Bill in Federal Parliament last night, Mr Bernardi said: “Time and time again the same characters seek to tear down our institutions that have been built and have sustained our civilisation for thousands of years. The time has come to ask: when will it end?

    “What is the next step?

    “The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society or any other type of relationship.”

    Senator Bernardi went on to say accepting gay marriage could lead to accepting bestiality.

    “There are even some creepy people out there and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve,” he said.

    Linking same-sex marriage to bestiality was offensive and a political howler. But in the Senate last week Bernardi gave fresh evidence suggesting his warning was well-founded when it came to polygamy:

    Three weeks ago Sydney’s City Hub reported on the establishment of the Polyamory Action Lobby, or PAL… And sure enough, PAL recently started a petition which reads:

    The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.

    So here we have it: a polyamorist lobby group petitioning parliament to allow polygamous marriage. To some, five months ago this was inconceivable….

    But who is behind the Polyamory Action Lobby? PAL’s president is Brigitte Garozzo. PAL’s spokesman is Timothy Scriven. And Kieran Adair is also one of PAL’s founders. And what do these militant polyamorists have in common? I will tell you. They are all associated with the Greens. Brigitte Garozzo, also known as Brigitte McFadden is listed as the contact officer for the New South Wales Young Greens at the University of Sydney. Timothy Scriven describes his political views as ‘anarchism and revolutionary libertarian socialism’, though the University of Sydney Greens Facebook page last year said:

    Timothy Scriven is an active member of the Greens on Campus and on our executive…

    Kieran Adair’s Twitter profile promotes the 2011 Greens New South Wales election campaign. Further, a ‘Kieran Adair’ said, on the New Matilda website when commenting on the 2011 annual Marxist conference, ‘I don’t identify as a socialist; I’m a Green.’…

    Polyamorous marriage is on the agenda. Greens activists are now pushing publicly for it while other polyamorists are lying low, waiting to be the next cab off the rank—no doubt, I suspect, having been given a nod and a wink by other Greens, who are still advocating marriage for all.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bernardi_dumped_yet_polyandrists_prove_him_right/

    So there you have it.
    Laugh all you want and say that just because there are arguments for same-sex marriage, that there won’t be for polygamist couplings. It happened in Australia, however, and it could happen here.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    alloytoo:

    Would you care to point out where I have bitched about “my lack of religious privilege”?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    The homosexual militants are much the same as an other so called oppressed victims group.

    Just look at the crap about about blaming the army for not giving a sexual predator enough counseling.

    More PC homosexual crap. This guy was a corporal and tried to hit on someone junior. If a male soldier did that to a female and committed suicide because of what happened as a result of his unwanted persistent advances there would be no sympathy for him.

    Most normal male soldiers would not want to share a foxhole or a shower with a homosexual while they perv on their naked body. You can imagine the outcry if female soldiers were expected to share showers with normal male soldiers. Most normal males would at the very least would be discretely perving on them.

    This is PC gone mad. Homosexuals have no place in the militarily. It is unfortunate this young man decided to commit suicide because of his action but it is not the Army’s fault.

    Family believes dead soldier was bullied about sexuality
    TONY WALL
    Last updated 05:00 03/03/2013

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8374147/Family-believes-dead-soldier-was-bullied-about-sexuality

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @ Graham

    The moment you suggested that Christian institutions rather than Christian individuals (as citizens) should be allowed to comment in a secular state.

    Clearly this issue concerns you.
    Probably a good thing, which will hopefully lead to a little bit of personal enlightenment and awareness.

    Glad to have been of service :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Whether we like it or not, religion has played a very large role in the history of our society, and it is virtually impossible, regardless of being a secular state to avoid some input from religious institutions in legislative changes.

    I have no imaginary friends, however, I acknowledge this history and their right to be heard, but NO MORE than any other affected group in society.

    The christian religion has faced far more opposition than the simple changes being made by this piece of legislation. If they cannot survive this, then perhaps their faith is not as strong as they would have us believe.

    What is their biggest fear? That the majority of society do not believe? Do not follow the word of their ‘God’? What is new about that for Christians? Have they forgotten the persecution and violence that lead to the deaths of Jesus and his supporters, and yet their religion not only survived but for a while it has dominated society.

    So they are facing opposition – it’s happened before, it will happen again – what really is your fear? If your faith is that strong, you should believe in ‘your god’ and his/her ability to protect you – and let the rest of us get on with living how the majority choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Really, alloytoo? So you believe that no institution – forget whether it’s Christian or not – should even be allowed to comment in a secular state?

    So for example, when submissions were invited on the Gambling Harm Reduction Amendment Bill, the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand should not have been allowed to make a submission? Nor the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce? Nor Youthtown, Age Concern, Alcohol Healthwatch, or any of the other “institutions” that commented on this Bill?

    That’s an interesting definition of democracy you have there …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Judith at 8:59 am –

    Yay! That’s all I would ask for. The right for Christians to be heard. As you say, no more (or less) than any other group in society.

    And you are correct, the Christian religion has faced many issues over the centuries, and it will certainly survive this issue. Well, I can’t speak for other Christians, but my faith will certainly survive. As I’ve said before, if this bill is passed, I’m not going to go out and proclaim the end of the world is nigh, earthquakes and plagues of locusts will assuredly descend on us, etcetera. And it won’t change how I personally live.

    I believe that there have been many issues and changes over the years in New Zealand society which have shaped us as a society – some for the better, some for the worse. I *personally* believe that this bill falls into the latter category, and although I’m not seeking to impose my will on the majority, if I’m asked what my opinion is then why shouldn’t I say?

    At the end of the day, generally speaking the majority should rule. If that rule goes against what I personally believe, well I’ll just have to cope with it. Same as everybody else does when they don’t necessarily get what they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    In general, I don’t have a problem with religious and secular ethical organisations contributing to public policy debates. However, when they do, they need to demonstrate that they have strong independent verification and evidential backing for their particular public policy preferences, left or right.

    One thing that does intrigue me is that with their current obsession against marriage equality, conservative Christians appear to be neglecting vital concerns and missing other opportunities. For example, why does Family First think that opposing marriage equality merits an ancillary website such as “Protecting Marriage,” while the alcohol reform debate didn’t? Whatever would the nineteenth and early twentieth century religious temperance and prohibition crusaders have said to that?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Chuck, most mainstream western liberal democracies have had lesbian or gay armed service personnel serving in combat roles since the early nineties. Ironically enough, one of the current poster men for marriage equality in the United Kingdom is a two-tour Iraqi War veteran and his current civil partner, hoping to trade up when England and Wales sign off on the deal. In New Zealand’s case, the armed forces hierarchy said that if a member of the armed forces was militarily competent, then she or he was entitled to serve, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Incidentally, poor taste, given the Corporal Hughes tragedy. Have some compassion for the guy’s grieving family and respect the fact that he served his country in arduous circumstances, apparently during an intake with training shortfalls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @ Graham

    Contemporary issues being addressed by organisations with contempory values is a far different proposition to contemporary issues being address by an anachronism with bronze age values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    So by “bronze age” values, I guess you mean things such as don’t murder, don’t steal, honour your parents, that sort of silly old-fashioned thing, right?

    Whereas all the other institutions I listed are just fine, because they have modern contemporary values. Such as don’t drink too much (found in the Bible), look after the elderly (ditto), and so on. Oh wait …

    See, some of the “bronze age” values are, funnily enough, things that most people would still hold to even these days. So who gets to decide which values are now worthless and shouldn’t be adhered to ? You?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. xau (11 comments) says:

    looks like Bob McCroskie thought better of his posts
    https://dc2.safesync.com/Sydvwx/The%20strange%20case%20of%20Bob%27s%20changing%20press%20releases(2013-03-05%20075746)(1).pdf?a=05EsO1_iV_o

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @ Graham

    Sorry Graham your cherry picked values predate Christianity (and Judaism for that matter)

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