Stringer cartoon

March 16th, 2013 at 6:16 pm by David Farrar

Marriage

 

I’ll just point out that the public seem pretty supportive of , and they can vote for or against MPs on the basis of their vote. 41 electorate MPs voted for it, and 30 against.

Tags: , ,

61 Responses to “Stringer cartoon”

  1. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Paula Bennefitt can consider my electorate vote gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    What many people seem to see as better democracy:

    Parliamentary majority – what should count when they agree with a Bill
    Referendum – what should count when they disagree with a Bill

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrew M (50 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    isn’t the cartoon itself a little up the wop?
    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MrTips (97 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Reid (16,473 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    ” 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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Johnboy – Don’t mention Putin (you know who that will bring here) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    Well, 55% of unique submissions were against the Bill

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    iMP, how many of those polls were conducted using scientific methodology?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Are you a divorce lawyer Judith? Were can I get arsenic at a good price? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gazzaj (99 comments) says:

    Calling for a referendum is pretty much admitting that you don’t have a very good argument

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    IMP
    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/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Johnboy – naughty! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. MrTips (97 comments) says:

    @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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

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

    Yvette, really? That is hilarious.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Reid (16,473 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    “(most abuse is of female children by males)”

    Despite the best efforts of the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scout movement!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    ‘Pretty supportive.’
    I guess that is positive affirmation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    actually more kids are abused OUTSIDE the catholic church by teachers, policemen, and BBC entertainers (to name 3).

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wiseowl (895 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Flog yourself you wanker.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Aha! Bain’s champion, Nostalgia-NZ, raises his viperous head.
    What do you see in Bain that reasonable people don’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    Jack 5

    I guess you missed the answer at 9.45.
    Try to concentrate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    The old broken record technique eh Nostalgia-NZ.

    Bit like: he’s innocent! he’s innocent! he’s innocent!

    Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    David in Chch posted at 10pm:

    …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…

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (5,214 comments) says:

    More like you’re a dickhead.
    I didn’t notice this was a thread about Bain.
    Keep flogging yourself, things might work out for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ posted:

    Keep flogging yourself…

    Or what? You’ll shoot me?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    If gay parents are so bad, should NZ legislate for compulsory removal? Plenty of same sex couples – mostly lesbians- raise children.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    iMP –

    1. Decriminalisation
    2. Sexual orientation added to “human” rights
    3. Matrimonial property law changes
    4. Civil Unions

    Which of those pieces of legislation would you personally support the repeal of?

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

    No. 2 only.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    iMP – out of interest, did you support 1, 3 & 4 at the time they were passed into law?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    wiseowl (220) Says:
    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.

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote