Stringer cartoon
March 16th, 2013 at 6:16 pm by David Farrar
I’ll just point out that the public seem pretty supportive of same sex marriage, and they can vote for or against MPs on the basis of their vote. 41 electorate MPs voted for it, and 30 against.
Related posts:
- Cartoon – John Stringer
- Cartoon John Stringer – Slick Politics 14 October 2011
- Cartoon – John Stringer
- Cartoon – John Stringer
March 16th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
The only way we’ll ever know is through a referendum.
Politicians around the western world in our bankrupted (morally and financially) democracies don’t like sharing power with their electorates,unless forced.
They all scream about “equality” but keep power very close to themselves.
“Equality” is a lie, a political catchphrase,bullshit.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Paula Bennefitt can consider my electorate vote gone.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
I’ve never worked out why Homo’s and Lezzie’s want to queer their pitch with mother-in-laws like all us straight folks have!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
What many people seem to see as better democracy:
Parliamentary majority – what should count when they agree with a Bill
Vote:Referendum – what should count when they disagree with a Bill
March 16th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Doesn’t John Stringer have his own silly little blog where he can post his silly little cartoons?
Pete: Exactly – and this is legislative change that doesn’t actually affect anyone besides gay people who want to get married.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
isn’t the cartoon itself a little up the wop?
Vote:The bill doesn’t redefine who has a say. 121 MPs had a say, people elected [except for the List Members] to represent the Public.
Which is no different to any other law passed in recent history, except a couple where some wusses abstained.
A cartoon is no more exempt than any other communication in its need for accuracy, and then the departure or punchline is humourous – or you just put up any old krap and it’s supposed to be funny?
March 16th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“I’ll just point out that the public seem pretty supportive of same sex marriage, “…….
Well, 55% of unique submissions were against the Bill, and they are arguably a more accurate view of the public’s view on a single issue than the 3 yearly poll.
All of which raises an interesting question:
has the select committee reporting on this Bill misled the house?
Specifically, could it be argued they breached standing orders 407;
section (b) deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition):
or section (r) publishing a false or misleading account of proceedings before the House or a committee:
Because nowhere in their report to the House, or in public media statements, do they mention the breakdown of unique submissions; Form submissions yes, but unique no.
Why?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
I’ll just point out that the public seem pretty supportive of same sex marriage, and they can vote for or against MPs on the basis of their vote.
Yes let’s hope that polling holds up as gay couple after gay couple adopt orphans.
I mean who knew that was snuck into the bill? No-one talked about that all this time, did they?
But by the time the deleterious effects hit the headlines, it’ll be history, won’t it. Altogether too late to reverse. That would be “discwimination.”
But hey, who cares if orphans suffer?
At least the “pwogwessive “advanced” thinkers” got a warm feeling in their tummies, at the time.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:28 pm
” as gay couple after gay couple adopt orphans.”
Won’t they have to go to Russia to do that Reid?
I worry about that. I don’t think Mr. Putin is as nice to queers as we are!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Well if they have a referendum, I think married people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. After all, haven’t they made a life long contract/decision? How is what single people want to do any of their business, except of course unless they want to ‘control’ everyone else and tell them what they should do and think – in which case, they should be running for government?
No doubt these ‘married’ people who will expect a vote are wanting to do so because:
1. They are secretly unhappy and waiting for the chance to divorce their ‘loved one’, so the bill will effect them in the future.
2. They are stock piling arsenic so they can assist in the early departure of their spouse, so the bill will effect them in the future.
3. They have children and want to make sure they will love them forever, which they wouldn’t do, if they should happen to marry a person of the same sex. (Unconditional love only exists if they follow the bibles conditions)
4. They do not recognise that having made a life time commitment, what other people do is none of their business.
5. They are secretly homosexual and don’t want to admit that they only married a person of another sex, because they couldn’t admit to themselves or others, what they really are.
6. They are narcissistic and think what they think is more important than anyone else’s opinion.
I’m sure there are other reasons too. But seriously … give it up and get a life.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Johnboy – Don’t mention Putin (you know who that will bring here)
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
But that’s not a democratic percentage, all it means is that slightly more who were against the bill were motivated to give a submission.
The majority of the MOM bill submissions were against it, but many of them were organised party puppets.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Three new polls out on this issue recently.
1. Yahoo poll, majority against same-sex marriage
2. Online NZ Herald poll (20,000 people) 44% for, 52% opposed.
3. News Poll (6300) 32% for, 64% against.
I’d say the MPs on Wednesday are an outlier. The trend is declining support for redefining marriage.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
iMP, how many of those polls were conducted using scientific methodology?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Pete George (16,735) Says:
March 16th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
———————————–
I suspect the concept of ‘organised religion’ was used to its full extent regarding the submission process in this instance.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Are you a divorce lawyer Judith? Were can I get arsenic at a good price?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Johnboy (10,098) Says:
March 16th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
————————–
Not yet, but I might become one – do you think it would save lives if I promoted divorce over arsenic poisoning? Personally I prefer to kept Mr Judith alive – regular doses of laxative in his coffee keeps him quiet and complacent.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
It’s a cartoon, so I’ll cut some slack. But I think the real answer is that the public used to have no say on who could get married – the law specified that gay people couldn’t get married, nobody had any individual choice.
If the bill is passed, then the public will have 100% free choice. People will be able to marry who they like – gay or straight. But I’m pretty sure the new bill doesn’t require straight people to have gay marriages – although I must confess I haven’t read it, so maybe it got snuck in there somewhere and that’s why people are so het up about it.
To me this has interesting parallels to student unions, in which some on the left loved to portray compulsary union membership as somehow giving students choice, and voluntary union membership (allowing individuals to make choices) as being compulsion. Funny how the shoe is on the other foot now. We rapidly learn who the people are that are genuinely in favour of small government and in favour of the government having less control over people’s individual choices. I suspect that Kiwiblog has a substantial silent majority who were in favour of both law changes, but from reading the comments you wouldn’t know it.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Calling for a referendum is pretty much admitting that you don’t have a very good argument
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Perhaps you should give him regular doses of Viagra as well Judith.
If he slips into a puddle of his own making from the laxatives it would give you something to pull him out with!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
IMP
Vote:If you were an MP, would you vote for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to be passed into law?
No (59%, 316 Votes)
Yes (41%, 218 Votes)
Total Voters: 534
– http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/page/3/
March 16th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Johnboy – naughty!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
@Pete George 7:32PM
But that’s not a democratic percentage, all it means is that slightly more who were against the bill were motivated to give a submission.
I’ll remember that next time we have an election and tell the winner it doesn’t matter as the losing supporters didn’t get out and vote. C’mon, SERIOUSLY?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
MrTips (116) Says:
March 16th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
——————————
This may come as an awful shock to you, but the people that read Whaleoil’s blog can hardly be considered a representative sample of the electorate.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Whereas the folk that glean the pearls of wisdom from KB can only be regarded as superior beings in any context of the word!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Yvette, really? That is hilarious.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Weid, why raise the issue of the adoption of orphans – when very few adoptions of New Zealand orphans takes place now – and the number by same sex couples (smaller in number than the number of infertile married couples) is only ever going to be a subset of this.
The real issue related to adoption is that single males cannot adopt a female child (most abuse is of female children by males) but can a male child and same sex couples will be able to adopt both male and female children.
Those concerned about the safety of adopted children – the few New Zealand ones adopted or the foreign ones adopted – should focus on strengthening the regulation of this process.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Weid, why raise the issue of the adoption of orphans – when very few adoptions of New Zealand orphans takes place now
Same weason as the gays waise the issue of discwimination when it doesn’t exist SPC. Or are you saying it’s OK to waise it one place and not OK to waise it another?
And let’s face it, what’s more important? Giving a few pwogwessives a warm tummy, or actual children who instead of getting Adam and Eve, get Adam and Steve?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
“(most abuse is of female children by males)”
Despite the best efforts of the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scout movement!!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
The amount of children sexually and physically abused by heterosexuals, (Males in particular) far exceeds by proportion the amount that are abused by homosexuals.
I can’t believe the ignorance of some of you. The entire adoption process has been radically cleaned up since the dreadful adoptions of the 50′s and 60′s. Adopted children these days have far more safeguards in place than natural children have.
Perhaps we should start banning heterosexual marriage, after all, more children have been abused in those types of family situations than any other. Then there is the issue of psychological abuse, of which many children with strictly religious heterosexual parents claim has left long lasting scars.
Perhaps religious heterosexuals should be prevented from marrying to save such problems re-occurring?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Judith, that is ridiculous. Heterosexuals are in relationships with kids by about 99/1 compared with homosexuals. But anyway, whether you’re homo or hetero has nothing to do with your propensity to abuse. Irrelevant.
You also perpetuate Cameron Slater’s endless propaganda that Catholics are responsible for the lion’s share of abuse: actually more kids are abused OUTSIDE the catholic church by teachers, policemen, and BBC entertainers (to name 3).
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:41 pm
‘Pretty supportive.’
Vote:I guess that is positive affirmation.
March 16th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
iMP (1,129) Says:
March 16th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
—————————
I guess you don’t understand the word ‘proportionate’ eh?
I don’t know what Cameron Slater thinks I can’t stand the guy so don’t bother reading him. And I am capable of forming my own opinion – I don’t even need an imaginary friend to tell me what to believe.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:54 pm
I’ve worked it out why so many hetero older people hate the idea of gay marraige – no matter how good your wedding was, two gay men getting married is going to be so much more fabulous than yours.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Two old, wrinkled, hairy arsed, gay men getting hitched wont be as fabulous as mine was when I was a young stud 43 years ago Michael luv!
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 9:25 pm
I guess we can now just ignore the appalling history of the church and the ludicrous dogma behind a system that bred, enabled and then helped child rapists avoid justice.
No wonder they have to start the brain washing from such a young age.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
The public are not “pretty supportive of same sex marriage” .
What crap.
There is no way a bunch of politicians should be deciding something this important. Conscience votes need to be done away with.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
There are so many posts on a Saturday night for or against various types of deviant sex, I reckon DPF should have a special Saturday-only blog message line instead of the normal “You need to be logged in to vote ”
On Saturday it should read “You need to be flogged in to vote”
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Flog yourself you wanker.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Aha! Bain’s champion, Nostalgia-NZ, raises his viperous head.
Vote:What do you see in Bain that reasonable people don’t?
March 16th, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Can I just point out that the whole idea of representative democracy is to have a group of people who, in general, ‘represent’ the general populace, simply because it is too cumbersome to have every citizen voting on each and every issue to be decided.
I would also point out that in those US states where the results of citizen initiated referenda are compulsory to be implemented (referendums? the spellchecker here doesn’t like referenda), those states are in serious trouble, especially financial trouble, because the generally ill-informed citizens of places like California vote as directed by various special interest group ad campaigns. The various often contradictory and competing referendums (it’s what the spellchecker wants) paint the various levels of government into tighter and tighter corners so that they cannot extricate themselves from their various and sundry crises. Yet the populace have no idea, it seems, that those populist referendums are the very source of the trouble.
We elect these people to make these decisions on our behalf, for better or worse. (Hmmm, sounds like a marriage.) That’s the system we have, and in general it works pretty well. (I think Churchill’s famous quote is relevant here.) They consult, decide, and we abide by those decisions until such time as we throw the buggers out and the next set of bastards head in a new direction until we throw THEM out and put the previous lot back in. It’s how it works, how it has worked for a very long time.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Jack 5
I guess you missed the answer at 9.45.
Vote:Try to concentrate.
March 16th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
The old broken record technique eh Nostalgia-NZ.
Bit like: he’s innocent! he’s innocent! he’s innocent!
Yeah right.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
David in Chch posted at 10pm:
But David, in Switzerland, Wikipedia reports: “Swiss voters can demand a binding referendum at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life.”
The Swiss are doing very well economically. Their GDP per capita is twice as high as NZ’s, and they have their currency under control.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 10:21 pm
More like you’re a dickhead.
Vote:I didn’t notice this was a thread about Bain.
Keep flogging yourself, things might work out for you.
March 16th, 2013 at 10:26 pm
Nostalgia-NZ posted:
Or what? You’ll shoot me?
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 10:33 pm
C’mon Nostalgia-NZ, you’re a bit slow with a riposte.
I reckon you might just know a lot about whipping and all that kinky stuff, given you are so into flogging a certain dead horse.
Vote:March 16th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Why is everyone banging on about a ‘Referendum’??
Since when has the New Zealand Government taken ANY fucking notice of the results of a Referendum?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 7:53 am
“Those concerned about the safety of adopted children – the few New Zealand ones adopted or the foreign ones adopted – should focus on strengthening the regulation of this process.”
That horse has bolted with this legislation. Gay couples will be able to adopt as a consequence as you cannot redefine marriage without the consequential acceptance that Gay and lesbian couples are equal at law with heterosexual couples.
Adoption law however should be about the rights of the child and one suspects this group of MP’s have not given that matter one seconds thought.
In respect of gay marriage – Couldn’t give a rats arse either way but gay adoption is an issue that should be openly debated rather that simply being a consequential legal change change because marriage is now going to be redefined.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 8:18 am
If gay parents are so bad, should NZ legislate for compulsory removal? Plenty of same sex couples – mostly lesbians- raise children.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 8:18 am
Funnily enough, I’ve stopped reading the whale oil blog. Some of it was interesting, but I got a bit bored when it became a gay apologists forum. People can live their lives as they want, but I got a bit tired of it being in every second or third article.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 8:23 am
Redefinition of Marriage Bill? Oh my! Is this what we pay all those expensive MPs to do?
What a totally irrelevant meaningless waste of their time when they could be addressing issues that REALLY bear on the economic and social health of our society.
I wish I had a dollar for every irrelevant, pointless statement and article i’ve seen on the – (heavy sarcasm warning) – vital, pressing, profound issue of whether we call a homosexual relationship a marriage or whatever.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. My initial hilarity at the pretentious nonsensical nature of this – oh, SO serious – debate wore out long ago. When this subject comes up again and again and again I think of the poor children who get entangled in these depressing, joyless and illogical domestic arrangements.
And you know what children are, and how cruel and non-PC they can be.
I can just imagine the reception a child of two males or even two females would get at some of the schools I and my children have attended. “Yah-Boo! Your Dad’s a bird!!” or “Your Mum’s a bloke!!” etc.,etc.
Non-PC? You betcha life it is – but its called realism.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 8:51 am
It was only nine years ago when Helen Clark, Tim Barnett, Chris Carter and David Benson-Pope made assurances that civil unions were not about “gay marriage” and that the definition of “marriage” would remain solely confined to a monogamous union between a man and a woman, and such, civil unions were not a bridgehead to full marriage redefinition – those were obviously lies.
Now, one can rightly assume that assurances that such redefinition of marriage will not eventually be extended to polyandrous, incestuous or any other relationship imaginable (or indeed unimaginable) are also lies.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:09 am
I think that is a valid point Urban. It is difficult to believe any assurances the sexualised liberals give in politics.
Many NZers opposed the decriminalisation of Gayness in 1986, not because they hated gays, but because they saw it as the beginning of a slippery slope. Let’s see.
1. Decriminalisation
2. Sexual orientation added to “human” rights
3. Matrimonila property law changes
4. Civil Unions
5. Gay marriage
6. gay adoption rights
7. Compulsory.
Looks like a slope to me. These initiatives, with the support of a liberal media, have moved and changed civil morality in NZ. Whether that is good or bad is not argued by me here, but we have created a relative moral vacuum for ourselves and we’re desperately trying to find some anchors.
Having abandoned or diminished the Judeo-Christian ethic, we are looking for what? multi-cultralism, moral relativism, whatever feels good, only if it doesn’t hurt someone, “human rights” as defined by the UN? Your own ideas, do whatever feels good but don’t get caught, the morality of TV and movies?
As the Athenian empire collapsed ending the Golden Era, and during the lawless era of the Jewish tribes after Moses, this is precisely what happened. The guiding morality slipped away and everyone did what they liked. Chaos and breakdown resulted.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:21 am
iMP –
Which of those pieces of legislation would you personally support the repeal of?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:30 am
No. 2 only.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:35 am
iMP – out of interest, did you support 1, 3 & 4 at the time they were passed into law?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:40 am
Jack5 (2,863) Says:
March 16th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Point taken re Switzerland. However, I would ask what sort of restrictions and controls the Swiss have on the advertising campaigns. Also the individual cantons have a degree of autonomy (akin to the US states), and each canton is much more homogeneous than any given US state (or New Zealand). I would also argue that the Swiss are far better educated and armed with the skills to evaluate each referendum than the average American.
It’s horses for courses.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 9:54 am
Just who do you think should be making such a decision then? Church leaders (great example they are – just ask the choir boys).
Perhaps you think Iwi leaders should, but then the racists among us wouldn’t go for that?
Maybe we should leave it up to the children, or that octopus they used for football games?
So its alright for these politicians we elect by democratic process to make decisions about every other aspect of our wellbeing, including what age we are allowed to have sex , legislation regarding social order, health etc, the only thing they aren’t capable of making a decision about is who we wish to ‘marry’?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:44 am
At the risk of sounding repetitive, as a dissident centre-left pragmatist, I’d be up for a non-partisan coalition of centre-left and centre-right individuals wanting to get rid of the CIR Act 1993. As has been pointed out, California’s referenda addiction has made that state fiscally ungovernable and brought it to the verge of bankrupty. Do conservative Catholics really want a political instrument that risks introducing voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide through the back door and then enabled maintained access to it, as has occurred in Oregon, Washington state and Switzerland? National introduced CIR back in 1993 to pander to its fundamentalist fringe. The League of Rights and other neofascist groups would use it to attack Asian and Muslim immigration.
It’s time the rest of us slamdunked it into oblivion.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
As for Switzerland, what do the conservative Catholics and antidrug social conservatives think about the fact that Switzerland voted in three referendums to (a) maintain access to assisted suicide services in Zurich run by the Dignitas organisation? (b) maintain foreigners access to the aforementioned assisted suicide services? (c) maintained access to a state-subsidised heroin addiction supply programme? (Now, while I’m agnostic about euthanasia law reform and open to debate about incremental drug policy reform, these should be the province of representative and deliberative democratic processes, not plebiscites).
Vote: