The first Republican Senator to back same sex marriage

March 17th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Rob Portman is a Republican US Senator. He was short-listed to be the Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012 and is seen as a credible contender for the GOP nomination in 2016. He has held numerous senior executive roles in the US Government and is an influential figure.

He has just become the first Republican US Senator to back . He explains why in his own words:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

Love and compassion is far more attractive than bile and hate.

One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.

Absolutely.

I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

Nicely put.

Portman’s change of view is sincere, I have no doubt. There is a wider political aspect to this though. If the Republicans don’t moderate their positions on some of these issues, then they will find it harder and harder to win elections.

In the US, support for same sex marriage is:

  • 18 – 29 70%
  • 30 – 39 60%
  • 40 – 49 55%
  • 50 – 64 48%
  • 65+ 32%

Now I can near guarantee you that those 70% of under 30s who support same sex marriage will not decrease as they get older. If anything, it will increase. So in just 10 years I expect we’ll see something like:

  • 18 – 29 75%
  • 30 – 39 70%
  • 40 – 49 60%
  • 50 – 64 55%
  • 65+ 45%

 

Tags:

239 Responses to “The first Republican Senator to back same sex marriage”

  1. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    Another sincere Christian. No phoney Christianity there.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “Love and compassion is far more attractive than bile and hate.”

    Oh gawd, here we go again, what was that about opponents constantly saying nasty things about the proponents?

    Are you blind deaf and dumb or something??????

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    This place is like a re-education camp.

    Of all the stuff going on in the world, all Rome is concerned about is gays getting their way.

    Gay marriage won’t destroy our civilization, but wrong focus certainly will.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. flipper (3,773 comments) says:

    David, when Rubio backs YOUR stance it may mean something.

    In the meantime, let it go. Your cracked record on this is akin to your blind spot on on “AGW warming” – it is boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    You might also want to link to Charles Murray at the CPAC American Conservative Union get-together, David. He noted that his own children are libertarians, but they’ve written off the Republican Party because they see it as run by anti-abortion and anti-gay nuts (his words, not mine!) and has recommended that the Republicans need to repudiate radical religious social conservatism if they are to win office in 2016.

    [DPF: I've met Mr Murray. A good man. And he is right]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Love and compassion is far more attractive than bile and hate.

    Because there is simply no other perspective other than “everyone that disagrees is full of bile and hate”.

    It is just such a tiring, simplistic, tortured logic that these pwogwessives use in any debate that goes against their ‘holy sacraments’.

    And that is exactly what it is, they are hypocrites of the highest order.

    How the hell is “you disagree with me, so you hate me” even considered an acceptable position from someone older than ten years of age?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Love and compassion is far more attractive than bile and hate.

    Fuck off Farrar.

    I’m not anti-gay marriage but you let yourself down with this comment.

    [DPF: I wasn't suggesting it is a polar choice between the two or that all or even most opponents are like that. I was making the point that I believe Portman's stance will win him support]

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    BTW Mr. Farrar, we all know that the pro redefinition of marriage push was based on propaganda and deceit, denigration of opponents, a fixed Select Committee hearing and a bogus report, and it was just basically an all round dishonest process, and we will not forget that. Not ever.

    You won, but we will not ever forget how you achieved that victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion

    If love and compassion were overarching themes there would be no justice and no flood. Mankind seems to have collective amnesia about cataclysms.

    my belief that we are all children of God.

    Technically, human beings are children of Rome, and as such they are always persons.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    And another thing we do not forget- the attitude changes you identify have come about not through reasoned debate amongst informed adults but by using the education curriculum and influencing/ brainwashing young and impressionable children.

    I despise such processes myself, for once we stoop to this cowardly means, any thought can be processed in the same way, and it often is and with sad and destructive outcomes. Keep education about education, not “socialisation”.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    You won, but we will not ever forget how you achieved that victory.

    Damn right we won’t.

    It is incredibly ironic that they are fawning all over the national sock puppet Auchinvoles speech on the matter, the only national mp in the last election rejected by his electorate for lacking substance (though there are certainly many more).

    My recent post on the Auchinvole thread was written with a smidgen of bile I have to admit, that situation definitely leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

    But he is a super duper nice guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Oh, for goodness sake, stop whining, relsockcons! It’s not as if you can’t have a large temper tantrum filled march of your own down Queen Street, although we will be on hand to film you with our camcorders if you misbehave too much. And there’s nothing stopping you from getting dosh from far right Yank outfits like the World Congress of Families, Witherspoon Institute and other non-Kiwi outfits to run one of your precious referenda. However, try not to wear black shirts as Destiny Church did back in 2005, or make it too much like Nuremberg as the Coalition of Concerned Citizens did against homosexual law reform back in ’86.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Zzzzzzzzz.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    We exclude a whole section of society from gaining a commercial pilot licence: the colour blind. We accept and justify this discrimination on the basis of safety. (Colour blindness is of dubious significance in instrument flying, it’s historic, based on green/red lights for starboard/port and landing flares if radios fail!)

    But the point is we do discriminate against 8% of men and offer a reason. So the argument that we must allow homosexual marriage because we cannot permit discrimination is not valid.

    The only argument is, is the apparent discrimination valid? I believe it is. Since time immemorial marriage has concerned copulation and raising any children, never homosexual acts. You cannot change marriage fundamentally and claim it is the same. The harm done to the institution, the formal recognition of a natural family, the foundation of society, cannot be calculated or dismissed.

    Worse, the only reason given to take this risk is to make homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals. That is totally absurd. They are not and never will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (6,667 comments) says:

    For the first and hopefully only time in my life I am with Russell Redbaiter on this one DPF….

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “Oh, for goodness sake, stop whining, relsockcons!”

    We are not whining Chutneychuteguy, but we’re damn sick of Goebellian pricks like you and your never ending self serving bullshit presented as if its objective comment.

    How about you lay off the intellectually insulting attempts at deceit and the never ending boilerplate propaganda?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (7,876 comments) says:

    Christians will be informed by the words of Christ.

    ” A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.”

    And Saint Paul in his letters had a lot to say on the subject.

    Christ was building on the Jewish Old Testament concepts.

    So man and woman,father ,mother. Adam and Eve from the very beginnings .

    Don’t use Christianity to progress this homo lesbian,socialist ,feminist equality bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    Sonny Blount hinted at some bile and hate with his reaction to…

    Love and compassion is far more attractive than bile and hate.

    Not only is love and compassion more attractive than bile and hate, it is much more likely to enhance an argument, in fact bile and hate will usually do the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    to run one of your precious referenda

    Citizen initiated referenda are a joke. Parliament’s religious prejudice is so ingrained that it’s just taken for granted.

    make it too much like Nuremberg

    Nuremberg was always about victor’s justice, not actual justice.

    Her emphasis on the idea of “including everybody” was widely seen as support for gay rights

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/11/the-queen-signs-on-for-gender-equality-and-maybe-even-gay-rights/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “And he is right”

    Yeah, of course, lets constantly buy into Progressive propaganda onslaughts and then reshape our basic beliefs to suit.

    FFS..!!!!!

    CPAC’s originally came into being to fight against the takeover of the GOP by RINOs, and now CPAC itself has been taken over.

    But people know what is going on, and things are going to change.

    Just not the way you and other progressive propagandists (with your self fulfilling predictions) want them to Mr. Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9928284/Ewald-von-Kleist.html

    Knowing that von Kleist was due to meet the Führer to show him some new Army uniforms, von Stauffenberg proposed that he wear a suicide vest underneath, and detonate it when he stood next to the dictator. Taken aback by this alarming proposal, von Kleist asked for a day to decide and travelled home to discuss matters with his father: “He said at once, ‘Yes, of course you have to do it… A man who doesn’t take such a chance will never be happy again in his life.’”
    “I had been quite sure he would say no,” von Kleist admitted later. “But, as always, I had underestimated him.”

    Is the institute of marriage worth fighting for? Are older people wiser? Will homosexuals be happy?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    What I would like to know is, just how does two men or two women marrying effect anyone else personally?

    What changes will this act when its passed make to your own personal situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I read somewhere that the results of same sex marriage laws in Canada are less than rosey ; that these laws have resulted in a lot more work for social workers and lawyers. Does anyone know more about this?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, in the declining once great nation that is the United States, in 2012 for the first time ever so called minority births out numbered white births in a trend that is set to accelerate.

    And progressives with their twin holy sacraments of sodomy and abortion remain too dense to comprehend the long term consequences of their actions

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Doctor Who (48 comments) says:

    Judith (1,762) Says: March 17th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    What I would like to know is, just how does two men or two women marrying effect anyone else personally?

    My shagging you wouldn’t affect me personally either.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Not only is love and compassion more attractive than bile and hate, it is much more likely to enhance an argument, in fact bile
    and hate will usually do the opposite.

    This avoids the issue of truth, just a Parliament is fundamentally in conflict with the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    Joanna: “Does anyone know more about this?”

    I don’t. If you want to speculate like that with any credibility you should provide some sort of supporting evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Not only is love and compassion more attractive than bile and hate, it is much more likely to enhance an argument, in fact bile and hate will usually do the opposite.

    Wow Petey boy!! that is deep!

    I hear that butterflies are nice and puppies and kittens are super duper cuddly too!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “What I would like to know is, just how does two men or two women marrying effect anyone else personally?”

    If I went and pissed on your mother’s grave it wouldn’t effect you personally either, so why would you object??

    Idiot liberal.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    I find some of the remarks about representative, parliamentary democracy here truly chilling. If you really want to live somewhere without meaningful human rights and civil liberties as we know them, could I suggest Putinist Russia?

    And as for the ‘subversion’ of the political process, do you honestly think progressive centre-right and centre-left New Zealanders are that blind? Bob McCoskrie is one of the scheduled speakers at the international US Christian Right-dominated “World Congress of Families” in Sydney in May 2013, and WCF was already listed as a donor at its last “Forum on the Family” networking event in Auckland last year. Who invited wealthy right-wing extremist US mischief makers into our domestic political processes? Not advocates of marriage equality and inclusive adoption reform. Its opponents.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “Wow Petey boy!! that is deep!”

    Ain’t that so.

    The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ain’t got nuttin on the omnipresent seer from Dunedin South.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (2,356) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    ——————————

    So you worry about what other people do in their bedrooms do you?

    Do you think about it often?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (7,876 comments) says:

    pete the plonker,joanna ain’t speculating she’s asking a question.
    Quite a legitimate activity……..unless you’re “progressive”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy if two people of any combination of genders you can come up with want to establish a relationship in New Zealand today they can – nobody wants to stop them.

    If they can find a Liberal minister of a liberal demomination to perform a “marriage” ceremony they can do this today – and nobody wants to stop them!.

    The hubris of parliament in redifining what marriage is though is another matter – marriage has at its heart the protection of women and children along with the recognition of paternity and attempting change this is a recipe for social catastrophe and in the longer term the death of our nation

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    If you really want to live somewhere without meaningful human rights and civil liberties as we know them, could I suggest Putinist Russia?

    Yeah, the old “please don’t get in the way of our empire” argument.

    If you want to defend your-so called “parliamentary democracy”, then please step up to the plate. Anybody can be a coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “So you worry about what other people do in their bedrooms do you?”

    Actually Judith, I’m busy at the moment building a home made suitcase style nuclear device, but you can’t object to that because I’m building it in my bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    kowtow, without any supporting evidence joanna is speculating – unless she is deliberately casting aspersions knowing she can’t back it up. Which iwould be devious rather than legitimate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I find some of the remarks about representative, parliamentary democracy here truly chilling. If you really want to live somewhere without meaningful human rights and civil liberties as we know them, could I suggest Putinist Russia?

    Meaningful human rights? are you bloody joking? Everyone here is advocating for meaningful human rights, that is the whole point!, not this wishy washy liberal progressive crap that cheapens the entire concept of MEANINGFUL HUMAN RIGHTS.

    “And as for the ‘subversion’ of the political process, do you honestly think progressive centre-right and centre-left New Zealanders are that blind? Bob McCoskrie is one of the scheduled speakers at the international US Christian Right-dominated “World Congress of Families” in Sydney in May 2013…”

    Whoa! just stop right there. Bob McCoskrie has a right to his opinions and a right to talk to whom ever the hell he likes. Bob has never shown any evidence of hatred, violence, or malice to anyone that disagrees with him, something that can not be said for his opponents.
    Clearly, simply disagreeing with you is tantamount to being an extremist bigot hater homophobe that hates kittens, puppies and squashes butterflies.
    How boringly predictable.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    Tucked in bed in a land so far
    Homosexual acts will be no bar
    In the marriage bed they will come
    Taking it always up the bum
    New families, welcome, from Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (7,876 comments) says:

    There’s nothing sincere or genuine about this Portman guy.

    He’s opposed this travesty of marriage thing for years,until his son came home crying.

    “Oh that’s OK son,I’ll use my position in government to make you happy,content and fulfilled. Afterall that’s why I’m in power,to look after my personal interests”.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Shunda, human rights are very different to natural rights. Human rights have little to do with ethics.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Dennis – your poetry makes Pam Ayres seem like Lord Byron, in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    PG
    I can’t do all your research for you..I have a life to lead..I read that these laws have resulted in a great deal more state interference in relationships and in the lives of children..I like lawyers so am quite happy for them to get more work..I am not so big on social workers but social work does provide a good income for many middle aged and older women so that is good thing. I won’t be responding to you…I am off out.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Being called devious by PG. Wow , I have really scaled the heights.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    Joana: “I can’t do all your research for you.”

    Funny.

    It’s not research for me, it would be research to back your assertion, otherwise it remains as a claim without much credibility.

    The effects of homosexuality and gay marriage have been grossly overstated by some, so differentiate you need to come up with something youself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    “Oh that’s OK son,I’ll use my position in government to make you happy,content and fulfilled. Afterall that’s why I’m in power,to look after my personal interests”.

    And this is unfortunately what people have been conditioned to accept.

    Principles and values are thrown aside for cheap, tacky personal experience, the masses are conditioned to accept sob stories over men and women of integrity, values, and conviction.

    As much as pwogwessives claim to hate religion, they certainly seem to love the pastoral model of leadership that promotes an individual to do the moral thinking for them based on ‘personal revelation’.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Viking2 (11,227 comments) says:

    KB is often robust in the debate aand slagging of one another but frankly this string is disgraceful.

    David should shut it down so those with bad attitudes can go elswhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    The obsession continues to gnaw DPF, doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    David should shut it down so those with bad attitudes can go elswhere.

    Flaming is pretty much inevitable when there is polarization over core values. Would you rather KB only addressed the superficial fluff that passes for mainstream reporting?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Shunda, I didn’t say that McCoskrie wasn’t free to attend the World Congress of Families. What he should not do is try to misrepresent opposition to marriage equality and any consequent referenda against it as purely the work of domestic opponents of LGBT rights, as opposed to networking with a US Christian Right-dominated pack of opponents of feminism, LGBT rights and women’s reproductive choice. And I find Andrei’s remarks about immigration quite objectionable, incidentally, as the grandchild of an Indian immigrant myself. Still, it epitomises the racist tinge to some anti-abortion activists.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    And I find Andrei’s remarks about immigration quite objectionable

    How precious, faux outrage, you jumped the shark there, and what is even funnier is that I didn’t say anything about immigration – BTW I’m an immigrant myself

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    Viking2 wants more Pete George.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “The obsession continues to gnaw DPF, doesn’t it?”

    Maybe he’s getting out of his Wellington beltway/ progressive comfort zone a bit and beginning to understand just how pissed off a lot of ordinary people are about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,108 comments) says:

    You can no more change what marriage is than change the color of the sky…

    One day, my son came home from playgroup and told my wife and I that he desires to marry both of his friends – a boy and a girl.  Henceforth, I have decided that it’s time for government and society to recognize that the term marriage should include a threesome.

    OK – that is not exactly the story of Senator Rob Portman’s post-election evolution on the issue, but it is quite close.  I only changed one word of his in my first sentence – I swopped out the word “two” for “three.”

    There is no other issue that is debated with more non-sequiturs and red herrings than the issue of marriage.  We hear cries for compassion, sympathy, fairness, equality, choice, love, pursuit of happiness and fulfillment,” and even liberty.  What supporters of changing the reality known as marriage fail to comprehend is that you can no sooner change the institution of marriage than you can change the color of the sky.

    The definition of marriage does not emanate from the government; rather it is a fixed institution of the civil society.  In its interaction with the civil society, governments recognize the institution of marriage the same way it recognizes any other fixed institution when the need arises.  If three or four individuals seek equality of choice, and in their ‘pursuit of happiness and fulfillment’ they seek to form a common bond and live together as husband and wife, they are at liberty to do so.  They can choose any lifestyle that strikes their fancy.   They can eve hire a band and celebrate. They can also choose to get married as well and pursue that fulfillment with one human from the opposite gender.  But none of that changes the reality of marriage.

    A man cannot marry a woman who is already married.  A man cannot marry his mother.  A man cannot marry the two women he loved back in his college years.  A man cannot marry his pet.  Hence, the pursuit of love and happiness, along with the liberty argument, is a total non-sequitur to the definition of marriage, irrespective of any governmental sanction.  When states must inevitably interact with people and civil societal institutions, they must deal with reality.  Marriage will never change, much like the definition of man and woman can never change.  When government, no matter how small and confined, must inevitably recognize distinctions between man and women, it cannot change the definition of gender.  Woops…they are already doing that with the breakdown of separate bathrooms in public schools.

    Whatever religious believes you might hold with regards to the morality of certain sexual behavior, they are immaterial to the definition of marriage.  Moreover, even if the government changes this reality and recognizes the absurdity of same-sex marriage, it will still discriminate against those who want to marry married women, multiple spouses, family members, or a man’s best friend.

    Ultimately, marriage is more than a lifestyle choice or a bond based on love.  It is a fixed institution that perpetuates genealogy and humanity at large through a bond built on love.  That institution has only worked in one way, and that will never change.  Two humans of the same gender cannot procreate.  That might be unfair, and some might consider suing God for this malfeasance, but it is just as unfair as the inherent exclusionary nature of the institution that has perpetuated all mankind.

    With this in mind, the idea that people have a natural and constitutional “right” to a same-sex marriage – to the point at which states are forced to include them in their legal definition of marriage – is patently absurd.  It would represent a much more egregious judicial overreach than the jurisprudence employed in Roe v Wade.

    Senator Portman invokes Ronald Reagan and even the Bible in his conversion on this issue.  He is free to hold any beliefs he wishes; he is free to reject the Bible, but he is not free to reinterpret the Bible.  In Genesis, the foundation for sexuality is established in the first chapter, “So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27).  In the second chapter, the institution of marriage is established, “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”  (Gen. 2:24).

    Those foundations are inviolable and eternal, from a Biblical standpoint.  And for good reason.

    In order to sustain a society where everyone can enjoy the maximum degree of liberty, there must be a robust civil society.  The breakdown of the civil society leads to anarchy and/or the growth of government.  The deterioration of civil society and its most important institution has fueled our big government problems.  According to the Heritage Foundation, nearly three-quarters of all welfare payments are sent to single-parent families.  Destroying the institution of marriage itself will not lead to a generation of ubiquitous liberty and scarce government intervention.  It will lead to a government-run-all society.  The vacuum left by a lethargic civil society is always filled by robust forces that are antithetical to the ideals of liberty.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/15/im-evolving-on-the-color-of-the-sky/

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Gulag1917 (768 comments) says:

    In the last 30 years we have seem to have got wiser than the wise
    “The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

    Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;

    Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;

    Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;

    Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;

    Increased demand to live off the state.”
    ― Edward Gibbon

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    KB is often robust in the debate aand slagging of one another but frankly this string is disgraceful.

    David should shut it down so those with bad attitudes can go elswhere.

    I recommend facebook for you Viking2, you get to post statements like a king and have endless hoards enable every stupid utterance.

    The best part is that anyone that disagrees with you can be executed from your ‘citizen’ list followed by much bitching with your remaining loyal followers.

    It’s a liberal lefties wet dream.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,959) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    …BTW I’m an immigrant myself.

    Does your country of origin support same sex marriage?

    If this country makes same sex marriage legal, will you return ‘from whence you came’, if not, why not?

    ————————————————–

    Gulag1917 –

    You forgot the Roman ruling class increased fascination with mind-altering substances, which played a very large and significant role in their ultimate demise.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    The definition of marriage does not emanate from the government; rather it is a fixed institution of the civil society.

    Marriage predates the civil society. Common law marriage involves a connection with the land that a civil union cannot attain.

    civil (adj.)
    late 14c., “relating to civil law or life; pertaining to the internal affairs of a state,” from Old French civil “civil, relating to civil law” (13c.) and directly from Latin civilis “relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen,” hence by extension “popular, affable, courteous;” alternative adjectival derivation of civis “townsman” (see city).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    I wonder when to homosexuals are going to have another go at blood donations? That is all part of the same agenda which is to con the public into believing that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals except for their sexual preference.

    We have clear evidence that that is not the case from the AIDS Foundation – The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year.

    Where is the evidence that homosexual marriage will make homosexuals less likely to commit suicide? When the evidence that homosexual marriage will result less promiscuous behaviour and consequentially less HIV and serious STDs being spread by bisexuals?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    joana – same sex marriage laws in Canada are less than rosey

    [UK] Gay marriage bill ‘opens door to abolition of adultery’
    THE centuries-old concept of adultery could be abolished in law as a result of the Government’s plans for gay marriage, lawyers and MPs said last night.
    Under a long-awaited [UK] bill allowing same-sex couples to marry, only infidelity between people of opposite genders would count as adultery in divorce cases.
    It means that people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful to them would not be able to divorce for adultery – unless it was with someone of the opposite sex.
    Equally, it makes clear that straight people cannot accuse their partner of adultery if they discover they had a secret lover of the same sex.
    It comes after Government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between same-sex couples.
    The bill also makes clear that gay couples would not be able to have their marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation for the same reason.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9827596/Gay-marriage-bill-opens-door-to-abolition-of-adultery.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Scott (1,730 comments) says:

    Judith, I am tired of the it won’t affect you personally argument. So many people think this is incredibly bad for our nation. And DPF thinks this is vitally important, he posts on it every, every, day. And here you are on Sunday commenting on it, so you must think it’s important enough to post on as well? The fact is this is the most fundamental redefinition of marriage that has ever been before the NZ parliament. It will affect future generations who will soon not know that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is a measure bitterly opposed by many New Zealanders, in fact the majority of New Zealanders if given the opportunity in a referendum would very likely defeat this measure. But like if you don’t think it’s a big deal, well ok, let’s drop the whole thing shall we?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Sofia (826 comments) says:

    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.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/stringer_cartoon.html/comment-page-1#comment-1112618

    Pope Francis has referred to adoption by gay parents as a form of “discrimination against children.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/is-there-hope-for-francis-on-gay-rights.html

    The argument for same sex marriage is ‘equality’, the elimination of discrimination – allowing equality for a group of adults to disadvantage children?

    Senator Rob Portman –
    “As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.’

    But what are adopted children entitled to?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Nothing embodies the Christian concept of the “captivity of sin” more than they Gay lifestyle. Adolescents who momentarily stumble into this behavior are led to believe it’s part of an unchangable “orientation”. Thinking they have no option and that they are genetically “Gay” they fall prey to the moral “vultures” who propagate this myth for there own advantage.
    Questions:
    1. Are more young “gays” committing suicide now than 40 years ago.
    2. If so why?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    Adolescents who momentarily stumble into this behavior are led to believe it’s part of an unchangable “orientation”.

    Or perhaps recruited into this behavior

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Reg:
    1. Simply put, we don’t know, as homosexuality was illegal in New Zealand until thirty-six years ago.
    2. At present, youth suicide occurs for a variety of factors. One of them is the absence of school antibullying policies and properly targeted and funded specific youth suicide prevention programmes, as well as the perpetual shortfall in mental health expenditure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Sorry, wrong, Chuck.

    http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Reg (544 comments) says:

    CG said Reg:
    1. Simply put, we don’t know, as homosexuality was illegal in New Zealand until thirty-six years ago.
    2. At present, youth suicide occurs for a variety of factors. One of them is the absence of school antibullying policies and properly targeted and funded specific youth suicide prevention programmes, as well as the perpetual shortfall in mental health expenditure.

    Thanks CG
    So could I re-phrase my questions:
    1. With the legalisation of Homosexuality and the presence school antibullying policies and properly targeted and funded specific youth suicide prevention programmes has the youth suicide rate dropped in the last 40 years.
    2. If not why?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    I can tell you Reg that youth suicide is over 4 times higher today than it was in 1970

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Interesting Andrei, I wonder why that is?. We have legalised homosexuality, we have anti bullying policies, we have targeted and funded youth specific suicide prevention programs and yet our youth a 4 times more likely to kill themselves. Maybe we are missing something?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    Chutneychuteguy

    The Warrior Blogger, veteran toll bridge protestor and traffic jam exponent takes no prisoners with his hard-hitting summation of the argument against same sex marriage. What was it Russell; something that happened at school? Is that why the other boys made fun of you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    1. Are more young “gays” committing suicide now than 40 years ago.

    Yes, most certainly.

    2. If so why?

    Because life for a young gay person, particularly males, is often like going through a meat grinder.

    A lesbian friend of mine once explained her revulsion over the sexual behavior of the male gay community by saying it is nothing but an endless meat market. She said “you know what over sexed hetero males are like”, and then said “imagine a whole group of them all together”.

    There is an underbelly of the gay community that never gets adequate air time, it is often a very cruel, abusive way to live and extremely difficult to escape.

    To blame the high suicide rate on heterosexuals is to ignore the most monumental elephant standing in the room.

    But we can’t judge, no sirree, but we will be blamed, scapegoated, and called all the wicked names under the sun for the dysfunction of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Psycho Milt (2,348 comments) says:

    The definition of marriage does not emanate from the government;

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t all this fuss about a piece of legislation? If you want laws relating to marriage, there is no body in this country other than Parliament that gets to define them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    The definition of marriage does not emanate from the government

    OTOH, the definition of what isn’t marriage does.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    “there is no body in this country other than Parliament that gets to define them.”

    That’s what the fuss is about bimbo- unpopular law changes by big over-reaching government and a bogus and corrupt process underpinning those changes.

    Naturally Chavez style leftists like you would prefer abject submission rather than protest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    Thedavaselinemode- “(Redbaiter) takes no prisoners with his hard-hitting summation of the argument against same sex marriage.”

    What have you ever got loser?

    Boring platitudinous progressive crap or try hard infantile snarking seems to be your limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    If you want laws relating to marriage, there is no body in this country other than Parliament that gets to define them.

    Laws relating to marriage are part of the common law. The problem is that Parliament tried to redefine common law so that people don’t know the truth. The common law has always been at odds with the civil state, the reason for this goes back to Babylon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    Rallying the troops and leading by example again are you Russell? Why, I expect you’ll be all tingly. I’ll bet that chest has puffed out at least 6 inches.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    See what I mean?

    Why don’t you cut the pretence and just start issuing demerits again Jackboot?

    Pathetic cowardly troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (6,967 comments) says:

    Whaaaa whaaaa mummy dpf nasty dvm is calling me names.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    You’ll be right now TDVM, your tail gunner is here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    I’m busy at the moment building a home made suitcase style nuclear device, but you can’t object to that because I’m building it in my bedroom.

    That is Redbaiter claiming that the state must monitor and control everything you do, including what you do in your bedroom, because you could be making a nuclear bomb.

    I’m glad we don’t live in your fantasy police state, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Redbaiter (7,862 comments) says:

    Get back to your basket weaving Wat, the better you get at it, the sooner they’ll let you out.

    BTW, any terrorists out there looking for a place to make a suitcase nuclear bomb, check out Wat’s bedroom. Apparently it’s available.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Griff (6,967 comments) says:

    I noted you obvious bad mood over the last week or so baity
    Are you wearing your really tight red stilettos again ?
    Why must we all suffer for your misguided attempts to follow female fashion?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    The hubris of parliament in redifining what marriage is though is another matter

    It was Parliament that defined (legally) marriage in the first place – the Marriage Act. How can it be hubris for them to amend that which they enacted in the fist place, Andrei??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    Red,

    I’m just repeating your own argument.

    Either stand behind it or concede you were advancing a completely ludicrous argument to oppose gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    Sorry, wrong, Craig

    http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    How can it be hubris for them to amend that which they enacted in the fist place, Andrei??

    Are you serious?

    Unless I have missed something, the NZ parliament is now dominated by liberal progressives that are so out of touch it stings the eyes.

    The fact that they are all fawning all over sock puppets speech on the issue is about as ironic as it gets. Chris Auchinvole was given the boot by his electorate, he was the only mp to lose an electorate for National, and why? because Damien O’Connor stood up to the liberal elite of his party, removed his name from the party list, and decided his political future would live or die by the vote of the people.

    The people of the West Coast responded and removed the platitude speaking charlatan.

    It’s a shame Damien didn’t go independent or start a new party, cause his current outfit is a joke.

    By continuing his rare brave stand against the grain of modern NZ politics, he could have captured the hearts and minds of a great many NZers.

    But ole Ocky fits in like a glove as a list MP, super nice, a permanent (if often irritating) grin on his face, and a great speaker of platitudes, cliches and liberal progressive twaddle.

    Hubris is a very apt description of NZ parliament indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    It was Parliament that defined (legally) marriage in the first place – the Marriage Act. How can it be hubris for them to amend that which they enacted in the fist place, Andrei??

    Ah Bhudson is it possible that anyone could be so ignorant? Clearly yes and equally clearly this is why you have been so easily fooled by this gay “marriage” nonsense.

    My friend marriage predates parliament by millenia – it is only in the last 200 years that the Government got involved and then all they did was put into statute what already existed

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @bhudson. No, Parliament did not define marriage, any more than it defines love. Marriage is simply the formalisation of the special relationship between men and women that has existed for millions of years, It was assumed everybody knew what it was, and what it wasn’t.

    Of course we can take a word and redefine it. We can call trucks buses. If you’re waiting for a bus at the stop, don’t be a bigot, a “bussist”, step out for a truck.

    No, bhudson, marriage belongs to men and women, and if you don’t want to get married, don’t. Equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    marriage predates parliament by millenia – it is only in the last 200 years that the Government got involved and then all they did was put into statute what already existed

    This doesn’t answer the question as to why the government can’t subsequently change the definition.

    Slavery also predates parliament by millenia – and was subsequently made lawful by Western parliaments: “putting into statute what already existed.”
    According to your non-argument, these parliaments couldn’t then modify or even ban slavery because, er, well it’s not quite clear.

    Apparently what the ancients did what the height of wisdom and compassion. Forget liberty, human and civil rights. Forget women’s suffrage and black emancipation; no, what we need to do is to use the state to enforce unmodified ancient practises.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Psycho Milt (2,348 comments) says:

    That’s what the fuss is about bimbo- unpopular law changes by big over-reaching government and a bogus and corrupt process underpinning those changes.

    It’s called democracy – you know, worst system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time? Perhaps one day we’ll get the Asian authoritarian style of govt you prefer – quite possible, given the places we’re getting immigrants from now. Those guys certainly wouldn’t trouble themselves to treat poofters as though they were citizens, but most of us prefer good old western liberalism.

    Laws relating to marriage are part of the common law. The problem is that Parliament tried to redefine common law so that people don’t know the truth.

    You do know the purpose of the New Zealand Parliament’s existence, right? That purpose being, to define the laws of New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    You do know the purpose of the New Zealand Parliament’s existence, right?

    Yes to preserve and advance the ruling classes interests.

    Just how democratic NZ really is was demonstrated by the anti smacking referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    You do know the purpose of the New Zealand Parliament’s existence, right? That purpose being, to define the laws of New Zealand?

    The purpose of Parliament is to act in the Crown’s interest. Your representatives are first and foremost ministers of the Crown who have a sworn duty to a foreign head of state. When the Crown’s interests are in opposition to those of the people then the people get shafted, end of story.

    Let’s imagine that I got together with a bunch of people who were reasonably popular, and we decided to implement our vision of public policy. Would that policy be law? If not, how would that situation be any different to what currently exists in Wellington?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Just how democratic NZ really is was demonstrated by the anti smacking referendum.

    Exactly.

    That was a significant turning point in NZs political history in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that we are told homosexuality is an orientation and paedophilia is a disease. In fact, there is only one clear difference between the two.

    Paedophilia involves children whom we deem cannot give consent; acts of paedophilia are (rightly) illegal. Some societies now accept homosexuality on the basis adults can give informed consent and it’s no one else’s business.

    The actual age of consent to sex varies. Here and the UK it’s 16, France 15, Spain 14. Some jurisdictions set a higher age for homo sex. In some countries the criterion is not age but marriage.

    I believe it was shameful to persecute homosexuals the way we once did. We do not choose to be what we are and we must all play the hand we were given at birth as best we can. I do not seek to stop homosexuals living together and contributing to society in the normal way without fear. Many are talented — indeed gifted — people with a great deal to offer.

    My sole objection is they call their relationships marriage. I don’t call that homophobia or bigotry, I call that reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    “You do know the purpose of the New Zealand Parliament’s existence, right? That purpose being, to define the laws of New Zealand? ”

    I thought it was just to tax us peasants more so they could live it up to the style none of the useless turds were ever born to! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    It’s called democracy – you know, worst system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time?

    Democracy elected Hitler PM. That makes it OK? Or is that just when it produces a result you approve of?

    Question really, isn’t it. Is it correct or not, not whether the majority of people at a given moment approve it. The two are different questions, and shouldn’t be conflated, at your or anyone’s convenience.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @wat dabney. Parliament nowhere changed the definition of slavery.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Scott (1,239) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    ————————
    How pathetic. You do realise that marriage is not just possible between a man and woman don’t you? In the Catholic church it also involves God. (Some might argue an imaginary figure) Historically it was also possible between sister and brother, father and daughter and so on. As society has changed and religions evolved, so to as the definition of marriage.

    You are relying on the modernised version of marriage, however the concept of marriage existed long before your definition.
    People like you would have us remain in the Dark Ages. You would enslave those who disagree with you, and make sure a ‘wife’ was chained to the domestic situation.

    Marriage has changed throughout history, and is about to change again and no doubt will change yet again, as society changes. You would have no doubt found the ‘wheel’ an evil invention.

    It is important to me because I have two friends who wish to marry each other. Both are wonderful people who devote a great deal of time to helping others. Both are law abiding non-judgmental people. They deserve happiness, and if this is what they want to make them happy, I can see no reason why they shouldn’t have it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    It’s not quite as brave as it used to be to admit you have queer friends Judith! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    It is important to me because I have two friends who wish to marry each other. Both are wonderful people who devote a great deal of time to helping others. Both are law abiding non-judgmental people. They deserve happiness, and if this is what they want to make them happy, I can see no reason why they shouldn’t have it.

    Yes Judith, just because you don’t see a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    And just because your friends think it will make them happy doesn’t mean 98% of society therefore needs to change the fundamental structure of their most critical and important social institution to make it so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Johnboy (10,119) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    It’s not quite as brave as it used to be to admit you have queer friends Judith!

    ————————————-

    Oh, they are not queer, they are a hell of a lot more ‘normal’ than many posting here!
    I suggest it is those who want to control the relations of others, that are ‘queer’ (in fact, you’ll probably find the majority are ‘queer’ in the slang sense too, sadly they haven’t the guts to face what they are, so they do protest ‘too much’) ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Reid (13,151) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Yes Judith, just because you don’t see a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    And just because your friends think it will make them happy doesn’t mean 98% of society therefore needs to change the structure of their most fundamental institution to make it so.

    ——————————————————-

    But it is NOT the most fundamental institution. Many do not even bother doing it, and many of those that do end up getting divorced. Most do not abide by the traditional marriage, in that they live together, have a sexual relationship etc, and often even children – before they marry.

    Our most fundamental institution is not marriage, but I bet you don’t even know what is !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    “Queer” is a badge of honour that alternative folk have adopted themselves Judith.

    If your friends were as close as you claim them to be I would have thought you would know that. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    How many here who oppose same sex marriages actually supported civil unions back then?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    I suggest it is those who want to control the relations of others, that are ‘queer’

    Really?

    I suggest it is those who wish to destroy the institution that has built civilisation who is queer.

    Isn’t that peculiar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Andrei (2,530 comments) says:

    It is important to me because I have two friends who wish to marry each other. Both are wonderful people who devote a great deal of time to helping others. Both are law abiding non-judgmental people. They deserve happiness, and if this is what they want to make them happy, I can see no reason why they shouldn’t have it.

    I’m puzzeled Judith, why do they need a bit of paper from the government to make them happy?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Oh, they are not queer, they are a hell of a lot more ‘normal’ than many posting here!

    You’re not exactly a shining example of ‘the golden mean’ either Judith! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Judith. Why is it so important to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”? Respectability? Changing the word does not change the relationship. Your friends know what their relationship means, why do they care what others think?

    I drive a Mercedes. It’s noisy and nearly worthless. Would calling it a Farrari cheer me up?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    shunda,

    you say more more young “gays” are committing suicide now than 40 years ago, care to show any evidence for this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Reid (13,152) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Really?

    I suggest it is those who wish to destroy an institution that has built civilisation that is queer.

    Isn’t that peculiar.

    —————————————-

    Oh Please, now you are really digging deep and coming up with fairy tales. Marriage did NOT build civilisation – nor is it a foundation of society. If it was, society would not exist in its current form.

    Talk about exaggeration and delusions – do you really feel that threatened?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    How many here who oppose same sex marriages actually supported civil unions back then?

    How many people advocating for civil unions back then said that’s all they wanted and legal equality would be enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Our most fundamental institution is not marriage, but I bet you don’t even know what is !

    Well what is it then Judith? Pray tell. Bearing in mind, marriage=family. And if family does not equal civilisation, then what does?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    “Would calling it a Farrari cheer me up?”

    A Farrar……i! Dennis you are a card old boy! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    The issue of a definition for adultery is only relevant in those countries yet to adopt no fault divorce.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    you say more more young “gays” are committing suicide now than 40 years ago, care to show any evidence for this?

    Are you saying Kevin Hague and other Green Mps are telling lies then SPC?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    As society has changed and religions evolved, so to as the definition of marriage.

    You’ve left out the most important part. Marriage is a lawful union of a man and a woman. Exactly what lawful marriage is was set out in English common law, a fact which is seriously problematic for the state. The state attempts to redefine what common law is by removing reference to the source of common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (751) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    @Judith. Why is it so important to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”? Respectability? Changing the word does not change the relationship. Your friends know what their relationship means, why do they care what others think?

    I drive a Mercedes. It’s noisy and nearly worthless. Would calling it a Farrari cheer me up?

    ——————————————-

    In all honesty, it probably would Dennis, and no doubt you’ve written a poem about it.

    Why is it important for anyone to call their relationship marriage? If it was so unimportant, why are you arguing to keep it exclusively for you? If it is so important to you, then why can’t it be important to others, and if so, why shouldn’t they experience it as well?

    People find happiness in all different ways. I wouldn’t care if the government dissolved all marriages tomorrow. Nothing would change in my relationship – I like to think what we share is stronger than some legal institution and social convention.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. kowtow (7,876 comments) says:

    They deserve happiness

    So now it’s parliaments job to legislate happiness!

    Equality of happiness for all.You deserve it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    You’ve left out the most important part. Marriage is a lawful union of a man and a woman. Exactly what lawful marriage is was set out in English common law, a fact which is seriously problematic for the state. The state attempts to redefine what common law is by removing reference to the source of common law.

    Crikey UT you’re not a lawyer are you? :)

    I only ask since this issue is not fundamentally about what the law says, but what the law ought to say, bearing in mind the law is merely a reflection of our collective “wisdom” (or otherwise).

    BTW Judith, still waiting for your “most fundamental institution” definition. You were pretty quick off the mark last time, but strangely not so rapid now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    And if family does not equal civilisation, then what does?

    Roman citizens, with civil law being the law of citizens. Rome may have died as a body politic, but it lives on in the church.

    civilization (n.)
    1704, “law which makes a criminal process civil,” from civilize + -ation. Sense of “civilized condition” first recorded 1772, probably from French civilisation, to be an opposite to barbarity and a distinct word from civility. Sense of a particular human society in a civilized condition, considered as a whole over time, is from 1857. Related: Civilizational.

    civilize (v.)
    c.1600, “to bring out of barbarism,” from French civiliser, verb from Old French civil (adj.), from Latin civilis “relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen; popular, affable, courteous” (see civil). Meaning “become civilized” is from 1868. Related: Civilized; civilizing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    My friend marriage predates parliament by millenia – it is only in the last 200 years that the Government got involved and then all they did was put into statute what already existed

    Ok Andrei, so you would be happy for the Marriage Act to be repealed then? Because it is not Parliament’s place to redefine something that “predates parliament by millennia”?

    Of course anyone and any group will then be able to classify themselves as married. And, like it or not, there will now anyone can do about it because the law defining it will have been repealed.

    Or is it that you do want Parliament to define marriage, but only if it conforms to your definition?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    shunda,

    So people who opposed civil unions then, now say they provide the legal equality that should be and was given – including the head of the Anglican Communion Rowan Williams.

    There only defence on that hypocrisy is to say that SOME of those who argued for civil unions to realise that legal equality also said that was all they were going to support/advocate for.

    But they did not and never did represent all of those who supported civil unions. Just as those who say they now support civil unions do not represent all those who oppose same sex marriages – such as the Catholic Church which remains opposed to same sex activity whether in a civil union or marriage or otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    I suggest it is those who wish to destroy the institution that has built civilisation who is queer.

    Just how long after this bill passes do you expect your own marriage to last, Reid?

    And how exactly will other people getting married manage to kill your marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Or is it that you do want Parliament to define marriage, but only if it conforms to your definition?

    How about if we define marriage according to civilisation’s definition dating from the time we lived in caves till now, today?

    Would that be OK, bhudson?

    Or is it that, suddenly, in the last year or so, we’re now much much much more pwogwessive thinkers and we now, thanks to [something not yet explicated] know better than every single one of our ancestors who has ever lived?

    Just how long after this bill passes do you expect your own marriage to last, Reid?

    And how exactly will other people getting married manage to kill your marriage?

    Yes absolute d’oh wat, as per usual, from you. It’s not about my marriage, or anyone else married today, it’s about marriages for people under ten and those who aren’t yet born, this is social engineering timeframes, it’s quite simple, what about this don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    shunda,

    First, you provide no evidence to support your claim that there is more suicide by gay youth today than 40 years ago.
    Now you provide no evidence to support your claim that Hague or another Green MP said there was.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Are you serious?

    Unless I have missed something, the NZ parliament is now dominated by liberal progressives that are so out of touch it stings the eyes.

    Ah, but it is the institution of Parliament that enacts and amends legislation Shunda, not the individuals. So it matters not that a bunch of crusty old conservative male MPs made the first definition under the original Marriage Act and now a group of more liberal-minded MPs are amending that – it is Parliament that did/are doing. And both the original and now it’s amendment carry the same legal gravitas and validity.

    And you said something about ignorance?…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Reid (13,153) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    Our most fundamental institution is not marriage, but I bet you don’t even know what is !

    Well what is it then Judith? Pray tell. Bearing in mind, marriage=family. And if family does not equal civilisation, then what does?
    ————————————-

    Marriage does not equal family. A person has a family when they are born, they keep that family for life, regardless of whether they marry or not. One does not have to be married to have children – children have been born out of ‘wedlock’ and are part of family’s in which the parent are not married since the beginning of time.

    And what about people who marry, but don’t have children, either by choice or inability – does that make their marriage invalid?

    No wonder society is in a state of flux if people are of the opinion that there must be marriage, in order for their to be family.

    fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml)
    n. pl. fam·i·lies
    1.
    a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
    b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
    2. All the members of a household under one roof.
    3. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
    4. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
    5. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
    6.
    a. A group of like things; a class.
    b. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings.
    7. Biology A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera. See Table at taxonomy.
    8. Linguistics A group of languages descended from the same parent language, such as the Indo-European language family.
    9. Mathematics A set of functions or surfaces that can be generated by varying the parameters of a general equation.
    10. Chemistry A group of elements with similar chemical properties.
    11. Chemistry A vertical column in the periodic table of elements.
    adj.
    1. Of or having to do with a family: family problems.
    2. Being suitable for a family: family movies.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    Nothing we say will make any difference, in the West the die is cast. Marriage is in decline, men are less and less willing to make a commitment and women accept it. More and more families disintegrate as people become more and more selfish and self-centred.

    Narcissistic homosexual humbug is a symptom, not the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Lest wat misunderstands, I’m meaning marriages for people now under ten who get married under the new ‘enlightened’ regime, of course.

    Thought I’d better make it clear, lest wat thinks I’m talking about something else.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    How about if we define marriage according to civilisation’s definition dating from the time we lived in caves till now, today?

    I thought the anti’s claimed that this redefinition would be the slippery slope to polygamy, yet you have just proposed that we going careening back to that. Or is there some shift, perhaps, from cave man days that you do want to impose?

    And after all Reid, it’s just a label, which is evil social engineering in action. So why don’t we just scrub the label completely?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Reid (13,155) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Or is it that you do want Parliament to define marriage, but only if it conforms to your definition?

    How about if we define marriage according to civilisation’s definition dating from the time we lived in caves till now, today?

    —————————————

    Marriage did not exist when ‘we’ lived in caves.
    Males traditionally hunted and didn’t form permanent attachments. Sometimes they would spend time with a particularly female and her family, usually procreating but there was no formal agreement.

    It was actually quite a good time – if you got sick of his smelly socks, all you had to do was point out some fresh buffalo droppings and off he’d go on his merry way, until he found another accommodating cave, in which he’d swap a bit of ‘fresh meat’ for a comfy place.

    It was actually females who liked the regular ‘meat’ supply and the safety that encouraged males to stay longer. By having a more permanent place to reside, males were able to amass possessions, which they then wished to pass on to their own children. The only way they could ensure the children were their own, was to not follow the trail of fresh droppings!

    And so the ‘family’ concept developed. It was several centuries before some clown decided to make it an institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Dazzaman (1,129 comments) says:

    I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

    Another ignoramus. The Bible also has the overarching themes of sin & judgement….all of which he has conveniently swept aside in order to satiate his conflicted emotions for a son in gross sin. There will be no unrepentent sodomites/homosexuals/perverts in heaven. Perhaps he needs to tell his son the truth for once.

    Not knowing your Bible makes for flighty & ignorant statements like this guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Marriage does not equal family.

    Yes, it does, Judith. All you have to do is look up the meaning of commonly used terms like “settle down and have… [a family]”

    If you haven’t lived in civilisation and picked this up I’m sorry, perhaps you’ve lived amongst Mountain Gorillas or something, in which case, congratulations on learning English and computers and the interweb and suchlike. How tremendous for you. But I’m afraid, for the rest of we humans, getting married does indeed mean, having a family.

    I explained, for the millioneth time, how this works last night in terms of how childless families and older marriages etc etc all fit in to this concept. In brief, it’s a macro concept, individual instantiations are therefore irrelevant, it’s about how the majority of people view it, and fact is, the majority of HUMANS not just Westerners but HUMANS equate marriage with family. And there is nothing more critical than family. It’s quite simple, not difficult at all. If you deny it, you’re either an idiot or being disingenuous. Simple. As. That.

    Therefore, gay marriage IS attacking the most critical institution in civilisation. That’s just what is happening. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    Judith, having got sick of cavemen, claimed a man with a bit more in front of him! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    There will be no unrepentent sodomites/homosexuals/perverts in heaven.

    AFAIK the problem is only with male homosexuals, and the pervert thing is a bit vague.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    but HUMANS equate marriage with family.

    Ah, no they don’t. They equate blood ties with family. And more and more often now, close relationship ties outside of blood and/or marriage – e.g. blended-families

    Tis you who is being “either an idiot or being disingenuous.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,496) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    “I suggest it is those who wish to destroy the institution that has built civilisation who is queer.”

    Just how long after this bill passes do you expect your own marriage to last, Reid?

    And how exactly will other people getting married manage to kill your marriage?

    ———————————————–

    I think he is threatened by the concept. Perhaps he has worked out that his wife could run off with another women. With the equality of marriage, there will be ‘gay’ men everywhere, who will donate the necessary sperm to the lesbian couples, and heterosexual males will become obsolete.

    Its a grand master plan to rid the world of beer pots and smelly socks. Evil I know – but the politicians are buying it! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Reid,

    Marriage is only equivalent to family if one includes de facto couples under common law marriage tradition.

    And of course re-married couples, that now include same sex civil unions etc

    Ugly Truth

    Recent relationships legislation is support of common law marriage, it includes same sex couples – some who have children by another person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Dazzaman (1,129 comments) says:

    AFAIK the problem is only with male homosexuals, and the pervert thing is a bit vague.

    It, homosexuality (& lesbianism), is a perversion…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    And so the ‘family’ concept developed.

    With scant time for shifting multi tonne blocks of rock across the landscape, I expect.

    http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/boliviapumapunka.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    Dennis – I drive a Mercedes. It’s noisy and nearly worthless. Would calling it a Farrari cheer me up?

    No, Dennis – but if everyone else could be fooled that your clapped out Mercedes is a Farrari, then you might have the acceptance gays want in being ‘married’, same as everyone else, rather than ‘civilly united’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Reid (13,157) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    Marriage does not equal family.

    Yes, it does, Judith. All you have to do is look up the meaning of commonly used terms like “settle down and have… [a family]”
    ———————————–

    So you think that this should be solved by the meaning of some commonly used terms? You do realise where this conversation will go don’t you? LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    It, homosexuality (& lesbianism), is a perversion

    Cite? The Pharisees had a reputation for making the law a burden.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Dazzaman (992) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    AFAIK the problem is only with male homosexuals, and the pervert thing is a bit vague.

    It, homosexuality (& lesbianism), is a perversion…

    —————————————-

    Only by definition awarded to it by religious institutions.

    As it exists in the natural world (yes, our rams and bulls do it – not the sports teams) then it is very natural and not perverted at all. I’m still sticking to my heterosexual male insecurity argument!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Ah, no they don’t. They equate blood ties with family. And more and more often now, close relationship ties outside of blood and/or marriage – e.g. blended-families

    So your argument is, it’s common practice therefore it’s OK? Gee I hope you don’t condemn the Muslim beheadings, amputations and female circumcisions then bhudson, because according to your logic, they’re all OK.

    I think he is threatened by the concept.

    Yes you may think that Judith but since you’ve never met me I’m not sure your conclusion holds water.

    The reason I object is because I foresee the degradation to come in relationships as they will pan out in those too young to understand what we are doing on their behalf. As I said last night, this won’t affect us, it affects our children and grandchildren. Even if you’re happy to condemn them to a lifetime of misery and heartbreak in the name of some hallucinatory discwimination that you can’t even point to, I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Recent relationships legislation is support of common law marriage, it includes same sex couples – some who have children by another person.

    The legislation opposes common law marriage because civil unions occur by licence, whereas common law marriage is, by definiton, lawful.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Psycho Milt (2,348 comments) says:

    I thought it was just to tax us peasants more so they could live it up to the style none of the useless turds were ever born to!

    Nah, that’s more of a consequence of Parliament’s existence than the purpose of it. Easy mistake to make though, given the efforts the Parliamentarians devote to perqs relative to efforts devoted to legislation.

    Democracy elected Hitler PM. That makes it OK? Or is that just when it produces a result you approve of?

    Whether I approve of the elected govt or not is worth about as much as my opinion on anything else – ie, not a lot outside of my own head.

    The purpose of Parliament is to act in the Crown’s interest.

    I’m pretty sure that if Charles I and various other English kings were available to offer an opinion on this, they’d beg to differ. But do tell us exactly what you imagine the Crown’s interest to be in the matter of who legally gets to call themselves married.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    UglyTruth – The legislation opposes common law marriage because civil unions occur by licence, whereas common law marriage is, by definiton, lawful.

    You said this the other day. Marriage in New Zealand requires a licence, so how does that differ to civil union?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Johnboy (15,433 comments) says:

    My wife paid for our licence. Cost $6 then. She was that desperate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure that if Charles I and various other English kings were available to offer an opinion on this, they’d beg to differ.

    The NZ state is based on civil law, not the common law of the English kings. As employees of the Crown, ministers have a duty to act in the Crown’s interest.

    But do tell us exactly what you imagine the Crown’s interest to be in the matter of who legally gets to call themselves married.

    Land. A common law marriage embodies the right of inheritance of real property. This right does not exist for civil unions because a civil system only has claim over personal property, not real property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    discwimination

    Still channelling Elmer Fudd?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    Those were the days, Johnboy – a Vienna loaf for 3d and a pie for 10d

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    She was that desperate

    …to avoid the meatworks :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    Are you including cohabiting couples in your definition of common law marriage?

    Relationship legislation – includes all couples together 3 years, whether heterosexual or otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth,

    How many people owned land in the age before licensed marriages?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Judith. It is not the married couples who are driving this redefinition of the word “marriage”. Therefore it is up to those who seek change to justify it. A word is only a word, a concept is something else all together.

    I have no objection to two men living together. My objection is to calling the relationship marriage, when it is not. It is as nonsensical as presenting children with certificates and calling them Nobel Laureates. Yes, we could, and they might even feel important for 10 minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Marriage in New Zealand requires a licence, so how does that differ to civil union?

    Common law marriage does not involve a licence. Typically New Zealanders marry according to civil law, so they think that a licence is necessary. When I say civil union, I mean a union of two persons who have an obligation the state. These two persons were typically a male person and a female person, but with the new legislation gender is no longer important.

    The difference between a man and a male person is that a male person has an obligation to the state and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the District and High Courts (aka jurisdiction in personam).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Fletch (6,108 comments) says:

    As it exists in the natural world (yes, our rams and bulls do it – not the sports teams) then it is very natural and not perverted at all.

    I call bullshit.

    All it proves is that is it mating season and the animals natural humping instincts are kicking in.
    They would ride any gender beast that was nearby, and ‘love’ (which is the argument used when promoting same-sex marriage) does not come into it. Or perhaps you’re saying that humans should be more like animals and not have any self control at all, just humping whatever comes our way?

    I guess that’s what separates animal from human: the ability to discern and not give into our baser instincts (although judging by our ‘just do it if it feels good to you’ society, might be a bit much to ask). That seems to be the liberal philosophy – if you want to do it, you should be able to; like having sex with whomever you want without those pesky things like relationships and love getting in the way, and certainly not the inconvenience of children. But don’t worry, we have pills, physical barriers and (if those fail) the homicide of unborn infants to stop that from happening.

    Of course, children is one less thing to worry about in homosexual “sex”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Are you including cohabiting couples in your definition of common law marriage?

    No. Common law marriage is de jure, while cohabitation is de facto marriage.

    How many people owned land in the age before licensed marriages?

    There wasn’t a single distinct age. Originally land was owned in allodium, i.e. as real property, but later only as a fee.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fee+simple
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/allodial

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    ‘I have no objection to two men living together. My objection is to calling the relationship marriage, when it is not.’

    What people ‘call things’ is getting a little witchy Dennis?

    Do you suggest we need ‘word’ police Dennis, in case people call themselves ‘married’ instead of ‘partners?’ Will everything just be all fine and beauty if the ‘right’ words are used, because from what you say you (important chap and all that) don’t ‘object’ to what people do behind the ‘cherry tree’ as long as they, if asked (I assume they must answer,) is fine provided they don’t use the ‘m’ word.

    Are you losing sleep over the ‘m’ word Dennis. Does it just drive you spare that the wrong people are using it? There could be a poem in that, surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. JC (930 comments) says:

    Why do conservatives, and plenty of lefties vote “No” on same sex marriage?

    IMO its a difficult question because the answers are not palatable to modern audiences in the West that are cocooned in the seemingly invincible web of the State.. but here goes..

    The start of the process of marriage may well be sexual attraction and love, but the Ancients found that wasn’t enough to provide stable families and societies.. there needed to be commitments, responsibilities and consequences after the bloom went off the love rose. With the acceptance of the contractual nature of marriage came the stability that supplied and nurtured children who grew the society and enabled its survival.

    Time and again in human history societies faltered and died when the chief building block of family was attacked by tax, complexity of rules, inwards migration of savages, circuses and rampant sexuality. Its often forgotten that Muhammad did not defeat Christianity in the Middle East so much as Christians fled to his more simple religion from an overtaxing, corrupt and overruling Christian Rome.

    So what has happened in modern times? Well, the State has increasingly supplied the money and support of families and particularly the wherewithal for solo parents to raise children instead of working.
    The effect has been that the rich still marry and value the institution but the poor and racial groups like Maori and Blacks have abandoned marriage in stupendous percentages and simply use their illegitimate children as bargaining chips in politics and the economy.. because their lifestyles have been validated and supported financially by the State.

    Gay marriage satisfies only the first part of the process of marriage, ie, sexual attraction and the rush of emotion but does not produce offspring which are the building blocks and survival of society.. at best it can only take children from failed heterosexual relationships and raise them in sexually odd arrangements.

    Gays, at 2-3% of the population are an expected and normal variant of human sexuality but are ridiculously over represented in politics and our Parliament.. especially in parties that wish to take even more state control over reproduction without responsibility.. which homosexuals in our Parliament are *not* demanding marriage amongst the heterosexual population at the same time extolling the virtues of marriage for themselves?

    Thats the conundrum.. if gays and their supporters demand the right of gays to accept the responsibilities and consequences of marriage.. then they must demand that heterosexuals likewise marry and accept responsibility and consequences.. after all.. gays and supporters say there are huge benefits to individuals and society from marriage.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    UglyTruth – Are you saying you don’t need a licence to get married in New Zealand?

    Find out the legal requirements for getting married
    Apply for a marriage licence
    Locate a Marriage Celebrant
    Obtain information about how a marriage is registered
    Request a marriage certificate …
    http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Marriages?OpenDocument

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    A common law marriage

    A union of two people not formalized in the customary manner as prescribed by law but created by an agreement to marry followed by Cohabitation.

    A fundamental question in marriage is whether the union is legally recognized. This question is important because marriage affects property ownership, rights of survivorship, spousal benefits, and other marital amenities. With so much at stake, marriage has become a matter regulated by law.

    In the United States, the law of marriage is reserved to the states and thus governed by state law. All states place restrictions on marriage, such as age requirements and the prohibition of intrafamilial marriage. Further, most states recognize marriage only upon completion of specified procedures. A typical statute requires a witnessed ceremony solemnized by a lawfully authorized person, submission to blood tests, and fulfillment of license requirements. However, in some states, the marital union of a man and a woman can still be achieved in the most simple, time-honored ways.

    History
    Marriage has evolved over the centuries, but some basic features have remained constant. In ancient Rome, it was accomplished by consent of the parties to live together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary. This early Roman model of marriage was displaced when the Catholic Church declared in 1563 that marriages were not valid unless contracted in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

    The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the Common Law.

    In the 1800s, state legislatures began to enact laws expressly to prohibit marriage without an observed ceremony and other requirements. Common-law marriage was prohibited in a majority of jurisdictions. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires all states that prohibit it to nonetheless recognize a common-law marriage created in a jurisdiction that allows it. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. Laws in all states require a common-law spouse to obtain a Divorce before remarrying.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common-Law+Marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Are you saying you don’t need a licence to get married in New Zealand?

    Yes, just like you don’t need a licence to exercise your right to use a public road.
    The state won’t admit to this because it is an article of their faith that the jurisdiction of the state is universal (Article XXXVII).
    Their faith is implied by their oath of allegiance to the “Supreme Governor” of the Anglican church. An oath is an act of religion.

    http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,042) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    ——————————

    Sorry to burst your bubble Fletch, but in the animal kingdom, it is not necessarily a matter of ‘humping’. I have personally had to put down a young bull whose ‘rear end’ was so severely ‘damaged’ after being anally raped by other bulls that it was beyond repair.

    Anal sex is very much a reality with ‘beasts’ both wild and domestic. As it serves no purpose for procreation, one must presume it is either a pleasurable experience or for domination – rather like in the human species.

    And please stop trying to paint the picture that sexual relations in humans is all about ‘love’ and not being driven by basic instincts – that is one argument you will not win.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. I object to taking the word because it names a concept that is important to society, and changing the word may change the concept for those in the future. It renders “marriage” essentially meaningless, just a game. It no longer describes or defines the personal commitment and sacrifice required to raise and defend the natural family.

    When the dust has settled, how many homosexuals will get married? A handful. This is not about marriage, it is about society endorsing homosexual activity. Make no mistake, fidelity is not a feature of the homosexual lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    SPC,
    Your description of common law marriage is misleading because it looks to Rome as it’s source, not to the common law of England. Roman law is the basis of civil law, not common law.

    This page has some information about the conflict between common law and civil law.

    http://www.actsinjunction.info

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    UglyTruth – do you drive then without a driver’s licence?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    Not the moment, the bastards took my car. LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Judith. So “stealing”, “rape” and “murder” are okay because animals live that way. You are a master of nitpicking and sidetracking, Judith.

    We all know the vagina and penis have evolved to fit together, and why.

    You can stick your dinner up your nose if you like, but it’s not called eating. We could call it eating if we wanted too, just as we could call buggery copulation, or silly women mad cunts. For example.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (754) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    …Make no mistake, fidelity is not a feature of the homosexual lifestyle.

    ————————————–

    LOL – and all heterosexual people are faithful ?

    You are just too funny!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common-Law+Marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (755) Says:
    March 17th, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    ——————————-

    They fit together for procreation Dennis, but other parts can provide intimate pleasure – sex is not solely for reproduction (in case you didn’t know)

    I don’t suppose your wife affectionately calls you Drambuie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    ‘Lord Hardwicke,’ what ever will happen next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    In ancient Rome, it was accomplished by consent of the parties to live together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary. This early Roman model of marriage was displaced when the Catholic Church declared in 1563 that marriages were not valid unless contracted in the presence of a priest and two witnesses.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common-Law+Marriage

    I wonder how much of this was understood by those who claimed that marriage was a cultural tradition of longstanding. In Rome a ceremony was not even required for a marriage.

    This form of marriage is equivalent to todays de facto’s – who obtain relationship property status after 3 years cohabitation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth,

    What courts recognised (and how) common law before the arrival of legislative or civil law?

    With the arrival of civil law, which became superior? Did common law only apply in the absence of civil law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    So your argument is, it’s common practice therefore it’s OK?

    Well that’s exactly the basis you use for historical validation of marriage being between a man and a woman Reid…

    So sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    Dennis you’ve made your point about your own position and it looks like nobody is threatening that, or as you have pointed out, that it will make an enormous difference to the society that we already live in apart from the use of a word. I don’t like talking about words too much, but nobody owns them do they Dennis?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Marriage did not exist when ‘we’ lived in caves.
    Males traditionally hunted and didn’t form permanent attachments. Sometimes they would spend time with a particularly female and her family, usually procreating but there was no formal agreement.

    Gee Judith, just how old are you? tell us more about those times!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    SPC,
    Consent and cohabitation are not sufficient for a common law marriage. The husband’s protection of his wife is essential. Naturally the civil state is opposed to the idea of an alternate source of security.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    What more than consent and cohabitation was then required for common law marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Just how long after this bill passes do you expect your own marriage to last, Reid?

    And how exactly will other people getting married manage to kill your marriage?

    This is a frequently pushed angle but it is as weak as weak can be.

    No one is suggesting it will have any effect on existing marriages, but it most certainly will have an effect on the future of the institution.

    Marriage is about relationship ideals, yes, that dirty, dirty word to a liberal that invokes feelings of right and wrong, success and failure, all the things pwogwessives like to blur into an awful shade of shit brown.

    You are in effect invoking a ‘grandfather clause’ on existing marriage relationships and then expecting those that value the institution to just accept it.
    What a crock of ‘ole stinky’ that idea is.
    When the state no longer upholds the ideals that marriage is about, the whole bloody thing falls over, it’s pretty hard to uphold the highest ideals of male female relationships when a couple of blokes can join the party as well.
    Its like deciding that golf can also be played with a soccer ball and demanding the holes get made bigger.

    I don’t want my holes made bigger! and neither does my wife! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    What courts recognised (and how) common law before the arrival of legislative or civil law?

    The earliest common law court was the king’s court. Later the hundred (from Judaic law) was a venue for the resolution of disputes.

    With the arrival of civil law, which became superior? Did common law only apply in the absence of civil law?

    That would depend very much on who you talked to. During the Nineteen Year Winter, the two systems were in open conflict, with the clergy in favour of Roman/civil law and the laity and nobility in favour of the common law. The early commentators were divided in opinion: Bracton supported the introduction of Roman law, Coke opposed it, and Blackstone saw value in both.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Well that’s exactly the basis you use for historical validation of marriage being between a man and a woman Reid…

    No it’s not actually. The basis I use is biology. The fact that a union between a man and a woman produces a child and that, via various biological mechanisms, produces a desire to stay around and raise the offspring. Heard of oxytosin, for example?

    Conveniently for mankind, this biological phenomena has over eons resulted in a practice of long-term relationships which as we evolved, resulted in a thing called “marriage.”

    It’s that which I defend against this assault bhudson. An eons-old practice based on biology. Which you wish to dis-integrate. For no reason, since there is no discwimination in sight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    What more than consent and cohabitation was then required for common law marriage?

    The husband’s protection of his wife is essential. Naturally the civil state is opposed to the idea of an alternate source of security, the primary role of the civil state is the protection of the citizen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Judith: ” … and all heterosexual people are faithful ?” Of course not. That is the whole point of trying to strengthen marriage, not undermine it.

    @Nostalgia. Words change. “Gay” once meant lively and happy. The homosexuals took it to describe themselves. Now some people are using it to mean “yucky”.

    “Marriage” is now to become little more than a comforting word for homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Reid, so de facto marriage is of tradition, obtaining a license under the terms of government – such as via a religious ceremony or more recently a secular alternative is the innovation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth – if the term protection of the wife cannot to defined, it means nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    The fact that a union between a man and a woman produces a child and that, via various biological mechanisms, produces a desire to stay around and raise the offspring.

    That’s a sexual union Reid, not a marital one. Your “eons-old practise based on biology” is that a man and a woman can procreate through sex. No marriage required.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    Reid & Shunda

    I’m meaning marriages for people now under ten who get married under the new ‘enlightened’ regime.

    No one is suggesting it will have any effect on existing marriages, but it most certainly will have an effect on the future of the institution.

    Then please explain why you personally would never have got married if gay marriage had been legal at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    I haven’t thought much about the strict control of ‘comforting words’ Dennis.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    if the term protection of the wife cannot to defined, it means nothing.

    Protection is the removal or mitigation of threats.

    If a man doesn’t know what a threat is then he has no business being the head of a family and should scurry off to the state for comfort and guidance, IMO. The common law has some advice for dealing with threats, and it doesn’t involve going to people who have a history of deceit and of abuse of trust.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I haven’t thought much about the strict control of ‘comforting words’ Dennis.

    Although I would not object to a ban on his Vogon poetry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, if kings courts came to rule on common law cases before it, then it is no wonder that this is confused with case law. For common law was not so much higher constitutional law but the “justice” that already existed for later courts (of the king) to then enforce.

    The objection to new/civil law was that it was an offence to precedent/the existing common law.

    The offence being change. Calling the means of the change – legislation/civil law – foreign was a means to object to change proposed by government legislation – all new law was a threat to the conservative regime of the day.

    Protecting the liberties of the people really required constitutional law – such as the Magna Carta, then Bill of Rights process and civil liberties protected in the process of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    For my friend Nosty

    The poseurs have come out to play
    Soon they will have got their way
    Marriage will forever change
    Into something really strange
    If asked children might say “nay”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    Can you cite any source that defines a common law marriage as you do?

    Your definition does not differentiate it from a de facto union, and these are called common law marriages by others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    For Rodders

    Oh Rodders, I thought you’d never ask
    But am I up to the task?
    Of writing a Limerick specially for you
    About homosexuals playing with poo
    No, in your superiority you may bask.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    if kings courts came to rule on common law cases before it, then it is no wonder that this is confused with case law.

    There is no excuse for confusing common law with case law.

    Bouvier’s dictionary of law (1856)

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

    2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.

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

    Oh FFS, don’t you god botherers ever stfu with your whining about other peoples ie the majority who don’t believe in bronze age pixies, desire to live their lives as they see fit within the rule of law. If you guys don’t like it how bout you go live in Israel or St Petersburg.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Dennis, you sure you aren’t related to Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Greenbridge, Essex?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, is not the common law enforced by the civil law authority? In which case the protection is not left to the husband.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    expat,

    They’re thinking of the children.

    yeah, right.

    All in favour of this sort of thing say ‘aye’:

    http://fashionablygeek.com/costumes/this-slave-leiauhura-cosplay-picture-is-screen-meltingly-hot/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    Reid, so de facto marriage is of tradition, obtaining a license under the terms of government – such as via a religious ceremony or more recently a secular alternative is the innovation.

    SPC, marriage is a customary evolution arising from a biological necessity due to the fact that we walk on two legs and don’t grunt anymore and don’t conduct our mating rituals in the same way. If you wish to call that a mere tradition in the same way the running of the bulls in Papalonia is a tradition then go ahead, but to me, and to most of mankind, it goes a lot deeper than a mere “tradition.” Which of course is relevant to the question of whether we change the basis of it, or not, since it’s not just a mere tradition, is it.

    That’s a sexual union Reid, not a marital one. Your “eons-old practise based on biology” is that a man and a woman can procreate through sex. No marriage required.

    bhudson, see above.

    Reid & Shunda

    – “I’m meaning marriages for people now under ten who get married under the new ‘enlightened’ regime. ”

    “No one is suggesting it will have any effect on existing marriages, but it most certainly will have an effect on the future of the institution.” –

    Then please explain why you personally would never have got married if gay marriage had been legal at the time.

    wat all this is saying is: it’s not current marriage that’s at stake, it’s future marriages for those very young right now and for those not yet born. It’s not “never getting married” that’s the issue, it’s the meaning of marriage when one does get married in future, that’s the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    It’s not “never getting married” that’s the issue, it’s the meaning of marriage when one does get married in future, that’s the question.

    What exactly does that mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    The concept of common law marriage tradition is found in Romans Chapter 1 – where faith in a Creator God is connected to procreative sexuality.

    Also known as bio-determinism, survival of the species by breeding a new generation – children surviving the mortality of the preceeding generation

    Of course the planet can only host so many of us at a time, so population planning may be necessary to conserve resources/maintain the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Rodders. Writing doggerel does not define me. What I value is the ability to think straight… not to mentally masturbate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    since it’s not just a mere tradition, is it.

    No Reid, it’s just a label isn’t it? (According to you that is)

    What exactly is the biological necessity that brought about marriage Reid?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Can you cite any source that defines a common law marriage as you do?

    Not as a single source. Blackstone wrote about protection, and protection is consistent with the traditional roles from Judaism.
    Other than protection, I mostly agree with your source about the essential elements of contract, cohabitation, and public representation. Your source talks of agreement rather than contract – this is insufficient as contract implies lawful purpose while agreement does not. Common law marriage is always a lawful union.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    bhudson (3,365) Says: March 17th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
    What exactly is the biological necessity that brought about marriage Reid?

    Ah, all is clear to me now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    If you guys don’t like it how bout you go live in Israel or St Petersburg.

    So why aren’t you living here then Expat?

    I like it here, I think I’ll stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    is not the common law enforced by the civil law authority? In which case the protection is not left to the husband.

    The civil law has no authority over the husband unless he is a person/citizen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    don’t you god botherers ever stfu

    Hey expat, got any more lies for us today?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Reid (16,072 comments) says:

    What exactly does that mean?

    Exactly what it said wat.

    No Reid, it’s just a label isn’t it? (According to you that is)

    bhudson as you know I’m holding gay equality marriage homos at their word, which is that that’s what they say, so fine, as far as they’re concerned, then they don’t need the word, so let them have the civil union word and if that’s not enough for them, then pray tell us why precisely that isn’t that enough for them. I’m sorry if that complicated proposition shoots over your head but that’s what I’m doing there. As you know, I personally don’t think they think it’s just a word, I personally think they know exactly why they want it, and I personally have never myself thought it was only ever about a mere word, as I explained to you last night. Have you forgotten already? So why ask me, again?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Dexter (280 comments) says:

    I think the opponents are more irate about this being a clear demonstration of their place as an irrelevant and rapidly fading part of history than they are about gay marriage. Won’t be long until their behavior and brainwashing of children winds them up in the same boat as all the other silly corrupt cults.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Won’t be long until their behavior and brainwashing of children winds them up in the same boat as all the other silly corrupt cults.

    So…..

    You’re referwwing to the pwogwessives wight?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, is there anyone not a person/citizen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    How was a common law marriage contract made – did it involve lawyers and sworn statements?

    Today we infer that common law means unmarried de facto – no license …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    We exclude a whole section of society from gaining a commercial pilot licence: the colour blind. We accept and justify this discrimination on the basis of safety.

    The point is we do discriminate against 8% of men and offer a reason. So the argument that we must allow homosexual marriage because we cannot permit discrimination is not valid.

    The only argument is, is the apparent discrimination valid? I believe it is. Since time immemorial marriage has concerned copulation and raising any children, never homosexual acts. You cannot change marriage fundamentally and claim it is the same. The harm done to the institution, the formal recognition of a natural family, the foundation of society, cannot be calculated or dismissed.

    Worse, the only reason given to take this risk is to make homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals. That is totally absurd. They are not and never will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Dennis, is procreation and act of marriage really synonymous?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    SPC (2,505) Says: March 17th, 2013 at 11:33 pm
    Dennis, is procreation and act of marriage really synonymous?

    Logic chopping.

    Since time immemorial marriage has concerned copulation and raising any children, never homosexual acts. Yes/No

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Dennis, is procreation and act of marriage really synonymous?

    Is the inability to understand relationship ideals synonymous with being a liberal progressive?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Joseph Carpenter (210 comments) says:

    I believe Ugly Truth is trying to make out he is a “freeman” or “franklin”, that his real/actual person only has to obey “common law” (in the original meaning – not the current meaning of precedent case law) and his legal/fictional person has never consented to obey or contract with “civil/admiralty” law or government “acts”.

    The problem is of course although that might possibly be argued by someone born in England that they are a freeman on the land, it certainly doesn’t apply to the Crown Colony and “lawful” Settlement Corporations of NZ and never did. Admiralty law always applied in NZ right from the beginning, we never had courts of equity only courts of law and neither did the NSW Colony (or the FCO if you want to go back further in the chain). The entire creation and basis of the COLONY-DOMINION-REALM of NZ is a lawful term of art, we were never a Commonweal or Union. The clue is in the head of state of NZ is the GOVERNOR GENERAL (acting under delegated authority of the Reigning SOVEREIGN of NZ).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    is there anyone not a person/citizen?

    Yes, children. Children may be assumed to be young persons, but like anyone who has not intentionally obtained a benefit from the state, they have no obligation towards it and such an assumption can be fraudulent.

    As far as contesting legal status goes, the presumption at law is that no obligation exists. This presumption is the same as the presumption of innocence except that it applies to obligation rather than to culpability. However in practice District Courts judges will make a representation that an obligation exists even when they know that such a representation is fraudulent.

    How was a common law marriage contract made – did it involve lawyers and sworn statements?

    No, just an exchange of marriage vows in the presence of witnesses.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I believe Ugly Truth is trying to make out he is a “freeman” or “franklin”

    I’m aware of of the freeman movement and I do not claim to be a member. I don’t know what a “franklin” is.

    My actual person is my physical body, not some legal fiction. There is no difference between the current and the original meaning of “common law”. The significance of the meaning is that common law establishes a connection between man and deity and a connection between man and the land. The fact that the system attempts to redefine the term only serves to highlight the significance.

    Admiralty law always applied in NZ right from the beginning

    For a case in Admiralty to proceed there has to be a libellant. A written representation that a man who is innocent of obligation is a person is an instance of libel.

    we never had courts of equity only courts of law

    The state asserts that equity is administered concurrently with law in the usual venues.

    The entire creation and basis of the COLONY-DOMINION-REALM of NZ is a lawful term of art

    Yes, as far as corporate entities are concerned. The realm has no power over people who have not given consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Still sorry, Chuck. I prefer qualified psychologists citing mainstream research material from medicine and social science to US Christian Right activists like Bob Knight of the US “Family Research Council.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    Dennis you’ve made your points well. I’ve read a lot of them and others while the debate has continued. At some point (last night) I realised that there is a lot of fear and anger abroad on this subject. So I needed to ask myself what I might be afraid of with this prospective legislation and how it might affect me personally. I don’t think it does, nor the majority. I only know of one couple likely to ‘marry’ if a law is passed. Don’t know them well, and doubt if I’ll think more or less of them anyway. Are you personally afraid of the proposed legislation and if so why?

    Moving off topic slightly, I think it is a massive diversion from the day to day business of running an economy and a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the term franklin is French for freeman – it was the term used by the Normans in England.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, is a benefit from the state use of services provided by the payment of rates or taxes etc – is it possible to live in a modern society and not receive from the state?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    SPC, Thanks for cluing me about franklins.

    A benefit only gives rise to an obligation when the party who receives the benefit does so by choice. For example, if I left a box of fruit at your house and you consumed it, then it would only be fair for you to return the favour. But if I washed your car without your consent you wouldn’t incur any obligation unless you accepted the service for value.

    Equity is concerned with matters of conscience, of doing what is fair. As the maxim goes, he who seeks equity must do equity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. It’s not the homosexual relationship that bothers me, because I don’t think about it, it’s the weakening of the status of marriage, especially important for women and their children.

    It makes no difference to me personally, I was married by the French Government (local Hotel de Ville) as is the law in France, and our livret de famille has spaces for the names of the husband, wife, their parents, their children, all dates of birth and dates of death. There is no question what my marriage meant and means. (It means an argumentative and opinionated man and a long-suffering wife. :) )

    I have known quite a few young women and it became clear to me that many men were just using them. Of course men have always used women and vice versa, but I don’t think it’s fair. A man should be man and take a wife and look after her the kids. Of course some won’t, however we value marriage.

    If I had my way there would be a social contract and people would be required to get married if they wanted the state to help them and the children. The sense of entitlement will destroy the welfare state. Nor do I care if people “fall in love” and want to leave the family. Tough. There is no discipline now.

    None of this is based on religion. It is based on biology and psychology. We don’t know why we’re here or what we’re doing here, but we certainly know what ruins people’s lives. From warring to whoring.

    Homosexuals don’t want to get married. That’s the wicked part. The other is the dishonest argument used to get marriage redefined, and if I am angry at all it’s how stupid people are to fall for this “equality” nonsense.

    Democracy is a delicate flower and the veneer of civilisation is much thinner than most people realise. We simply must get people doing what’s right, not merely doing what they like. We still face a collapse of the banking and financial system, a burgeoning world population and diminishing resources.

    The humbuggers are merely availing themselves of our mass madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    …Homosexuals don’t want to get married. That’s the wicked part…

    Is this the voice of experience?

    Have you surveyed all homosexuals, are you homosexual and presuming what you want applies to all other males of your sexual persuasion, or are you just making a massive assumption?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    We simply must get people doing what’s right, not merely doing what they like.

    Who is to say what is right and what is not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t probably have said this a few weeks ago as things distilled Dennis, but now I feel I could easily argue that allowing same sex couples to marry actually strengthens marriage. The proposal is not an attack on your marriage, the marriage of others now or in the future. It doesn’t detract in anyway from your thoughts on marriage, or your commitment to the same. In fact if you think about the values you place on marriage, it enhances them because others who have been estranged from the opportunity place the same or similar values on it as to which they might also attain. Hard for me at least, to think I should feel a right to exclude them from that.

    I deliberately asked the question of whether you felt afraid of these developments, by your answer it seems you don’t because you are confident in the decisions and commitments you made when you took your vows. There seems no reason that others should not have the same opportunity or commitment as you? Your life and marriage, and those of the rest of us who might also be married and have children, or who live in defacto relationships will simply continue on if this legislation is passed, the rejoinder might be of having taken the opportunity to show the confidence of not standing in the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. I understand your point of view but I think it is wishful thinking. We’ll see the numbers eventually. No doubt a few homosexuals are in stable and faithful relationships, to the extent I would and do refer to them informally as “married”. I “know” a few on British blogs, only one couple personally.

    Even so, what exactly is the benefit the relationship be a legal “marriage”? You see, I don’t think, despite a few genuine cases, this is anything but a cynical manoeuvre to force society to endorse homosexual acts. I don’t mean just accept, I mean to regard buggery as exactly the same as copulation. (Parents with Down’s children say no parent should abort them, they are too valuable. No they’re not.)

    I think homosexuality is like any other hereditary or congenital abnormality. Nobody pretends cleft palate is good, we try to fix it. A colour-blind man cannot or should not do certain things, and must accept his lot, so must a homosexual man. We don’t pretend red and green is indistinguishable to make colour-blind men feel better about themselves.

    What this campaign has done is made me a lot less charitable than I once was. From a biological point of view there is little difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. In both cases, something has gone wrong. There is nothing good about either, for the subject or society. Having said that, many gifted men have been homosexuals, and frankly I don’t know if that’s in spite of or because of.

    If redefining marriage does alter homosexuals’ behaviour, which is typically ferociously promiscuous, with disease a consequence, then I might accept it as a reasonable trade-off against the likely weakening of the status of marriage in the community.

    Whatever the outcome, we should be doing a lot more to make marriage a real prize, at least where children are involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Judith (8,243 comments) says:

    Homosexuality hereditary?

    Did you think about that one before you typed it Dennis?

    A congenital abnormality, and yet some of histories greatest scientists were homosexual – Sir Isaac Newton for starters.
    Its a very good thing we have such an ‘abnormality – humankind might never have progressed as far as it has, otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    Judith (1,792) Says: March 18th, 2013 at 9:48 pm. Homosexuality hereditary? Did you think about that one before you typed it Dennis?

    Your usual trick, Judith, Logic chopping. I didn’t say homosexuality is hereditary, although it might be to some extent, via the mother’s physiology. It is congenital. Or are you suggesting it’s a choice? No, the prime cause is likely a lack of hormones at a critical point of development.

    Not much evidence Newton was homosexual, and if so, so? Do you think that strengthens your argument somehow? Nothing to do with my argument, Newton didn’t try to marry a man. Furthermore, great as he was, Newton is famous largely because he outmanoeuvred other great men, like Hooke.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nostalgia-NZ (4,999 comments) says:

    Yes we will see the numbers eventually Dennis. In the meantime I have reflected on the ‘the numbers’ of children that end up in difficulties from split marriages, defacto dads and so on. But getting to what seems the core of your objection now, the act of sex between homosexuals will remain whether this bill is passed or not. However, if it is passed one group will no longer be discriminated against in a particular way. On a larger landscape marriage will not deteriorate (as I wrote earlier there is reason to believe it will strengthen), it will simply be a choice for those that which to choose to be married, thunder won’t strike, the earth will not shake and crevice, life will continue on, those 2 generations following us won’t blink and may hopefully see this issue caused rifts that were able to be overcome for what will become more commonplace events (but still apparently rare) in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Dennis Horne (2,125 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. It is true I regard homosexuality as an abnormality but I accept it, always have, as I accept hare lip and hole in the heart. Everybody would be better off if there was a cure.

    The issue is, will redefining marriage to include homosexual acts alter the way society, particularly individuals of future generations, look at marriage. We both agree it might. You think it will improve the status. I don’t.

    The figures do not suggest homosexuals will get married. I think homosexuals have pushed for this redefinition of marriage for other reasons. You think the activists are genuine. I don’t.

    Arguing for me is an exercise in trying to understand. I don’t set out to change the world. Not because I know I can’t, more because I don’t really care. I have provided for my children, who did not ask to be born. What they do is up to them.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.