Marriage Bill Third Reading

April 18th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Two hours before the debate even started, there was a long queue of people lined up in the rain wanting to be able to see this bill passed into law. There were so many people, that the Legislative Council Chamber had to be used as an over-flow public gallery. I’ve never seen a bill before where people would turn up two hours early just to get a seat in the gallery.

The debate started at 7.30 pm to a packed House and gallery. David Carter was in the chair. That was unusual as the Speaker normally only presides over question time and general debate. Also unusual was that the bench reserved for former MPs was full up.

Marilyn Waring was there, the National MP for Raglan and Waipa from 1975 to 1984. She was “outed” as a lesbian in 1976, when she was just 23. Former National List MP Katherine Rich was there. Katherine was one of just three National MPs to vote for civil unions. Georgina Beyer was there.  Her election as MP for Wairarapa in 1999 showed that her constituents didn’t care about the fact she was trans-gender – just that they thought she was the best MP for their electorate. And Tim Barnett was there, who played a crucial role in getting civil unions introduced in a very close vote.

Also noticeable in the House was a few MPs wearing bridal style fascinators, which was a clever way to get around the no hat rule. Metiria Turei and Holly Walker were both wearing very bright ones, as was journalist Laura McQuillan in the gallery. A nice touch of class and colour.

The other noticeable thing was one of the dozen or so opponents in the gallery. She was in the far corner, and every time an MP started to speak in favour here eyes would close, she would slump forward and hold her hands up high above her head in a form of prayer. I was unable to work out if she was trying to bring down lightning strikes on those MPs, or praying for their souls to be saved.

The debate started with Louisa Wall. She said:

In our society the meaning of marriage is universal. It is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. Law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do. Law that prohibits people from enjoying that state is just wrong. Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this bill. That has never been part of the State’s marriage law and it never should be.

Maurice Williamson then gave a hilarious speech. The House and galleries were in non stop laughter and applause. I’ve embedded it above as a few extracts can’t do it justice.

I have had a reverend in my local electorate call and say that the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. We are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We do not know whether it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops, or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in. I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life. …  I have not done it, so I do not know what it is about.

And further:

I also had a letter telling me that I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity. That was a bad mistake, because I have got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5,000 degrees. I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It is hardly eternity.

But he pointed out most opposition was sincere:

I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school. However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned, who were seriously worried, about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might to do to their families and so on. Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that

Far from there being something wrong with that, there is something great about that.

Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought—this bill was the cause of our drought. Well, if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign. Can I finish—for all those who are concerned about this—with a quote from the Bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical Cats, but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29: “Be ye not afraid.”

I loved his line about thinking Deuteronomy was a cat from Cats!

Jami-Lee Ross made a personal observation:

I want to briefly talk also about the question of children, because it is a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know that it is a touchy subject, but as someone who actually grew up without a mother and without a father, I think I am somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life, but those influences do not necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What is most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What is most important is that the people who are raising that child give them a home that is safe, warm, educating, and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same-sex marriage, then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved and cared for child.

So absolutely correct.

Grant Robertson also spoke personally:

Well, in New Zealand in 1986 there was a 14-year-old young man sitting in Dunedin who read the newspaper about the law to decriminalise homosexuality, and he cut out of the newspaper the names of those who voted for and those who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. And that gave him—me—hope that maybe his life would be all right. There were 49 people in favour of the law that day. To Annette King, Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard, and Peter Dunne, who are still here today, thank you for giving me that hope.

I’m going to a seperate post on the wider issue, its meaning, and the celebrations last night. But let me say that what Grant said about the power of hope law changes like 1986 and 2013 give to younger GLBT New Zealanders can not be over-stated.

Winston Peters have a bizarre speech where he accused Louisa Wall of not even telling her own party about her bill and sneaking it past the whips and the Labour caucus. it was unintentionally hilarious. You have half the Labour caucus shouting out he was wrong, and Winston insisting that he know what happened in their party more than they do, and that they were covering it up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I am coming on with the facts here—is for members’ bills to be taken to the Labour whip’s office for the Labour whip to lodge after the bill is approved by the Labour caucus. That is the process every party follows, and it has to be followed because the system will not operate without it. But Ms Wall did not. It is a fact. Make all the statements they like now, but the first the Labour leader’s office knew was seeing it on the list of bills lodged. That is a fact. So tell us why the Labour whip’s office was not told at caucus first, before the bill was lodged—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It did go to caucus.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am getting it from the best of authority that that is what happened—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, after the event. That is true—after the event.

Moana Mackey: We were there.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So you were in the whip’s office? No, you were not, and that is a fact. My evidence is of somebody who was, and it suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue.

If you ever needed proof that Winston just makes shit up, this speech provided it. His conspiracy theories have no limits.

Peters also repeated his call for a referendum and cited how NZ First insisted on their superannuation policy in 1997 going to a referendum. However he was followed by Tau Henare who mauled him and all but called him a liar:

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will be splitting my call with the Hon Nikki Kaye. I did have a speech prepared, but that speech shot it to bits. Here is the bona fides on the New Zealand First referendum of the 1990s. The National Party said no to a bill. That is why we went to a referendum, and when we went to a referendum, 82 percent of the country said: “No, Winston. We don’t believe in you any more.” That is what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus. And that speech that I heard tonight was the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard—the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard.

Tau is correct. It was National that insisted on the referendum. Winston did not want a referendum. And as Tau also pointed out Winston also never took things to caucus. He even expelled Brendan Horan without even discussing it with his caucus first.

Nikki Kaye gave a powerful speech:

There are so many stories that we have heard over the last 6 months of people desperate to marry, of young people taking their lives because they have never been accepted, and of people in relationships for 30 years desperate to have that properly recognised in law. This bill is not just about equality and freedom for people to choose whom they want to spend the rest of their life with. It is also fundamentally about human dignity, real acceptance, and good old-fashioned love. For people who are currently married, we have already heard that nothing will change. Weddings will still happen. They will still be expensive. There will still be honeymoons, cakes, and stag dos, dresses and rings, and the odd drunk uncle. But marriage is more than that. It is a huge commitment, and it is something so many young people want. Passing this bill actually means that young gay and lesbian New Zealanders can have the same dream that other young New Zealanders have.

Kevin Hague followed:

It is time. In one of the many messages that I have received on this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, one man said “My partner and I have been together for 30 years. It would be great to celebrate our anniversary with a wedding.” I mentioned in the first reading that I have been together with my partner Ian, who is here tonight with my son, Thomas, for 28 years—now nearly 29 years. And I could not help but reflect on our journey during that time. When we got together our relationship was against the law. The message sent by the law could not have been clearer. We were outsiders. We did not belong. The debate over Fran Wilde’s bill was extremely toxic. A lot of people said a lot of very unpleasant things about us and, of course, predicted that the bill would spell the end of New Zealand society. I will be eternally grateful to Fran and her colleagues, to George Gair, for standing up for what was right. I remember travelling to Auckland’s North Shore to protest against one of our opponents, Pastor Richard Flynn, who called publicly for homosexuals like me to be put to death.

It still astonishes me that less than 30 years ago it was illegal to have a gay relationship.

Maryan Street:

Those famous words of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice come to mind: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”. And I would add: “And if we are not equal before the law, are we not lesser beings?” So I come at the issue of marriage equality simply on the basis of equality before the law.

John Banks rose to speak in support. He was a strident campaigner against homosexual law reform in the 1980s. He said:

I am one of a handful of members who was here in the very early days of these debates. After three decades and 10 Parliaments, I have had time to reflect—to reflect on what I said and to reflect on what I did. If I knew then what I have since learnt, I would have acted differently.

Nice. and further:

I see this as a debate more about human rights, predicated on the basis that we are all entitled to live our lives to the fullest extent of human happiness, while respecting the rights and beliefs of others. I believe all New Zealanders should be free to pursue their own happiness. … When making this decision, I had to ask myself: “Will New Zealanders have more freedoms as a result of this bill? Yes. Will freedom of religion be preserved? Yes. Will anyone’s freedoms be taken away by this bill? No. Would the God that I believe in think any less of me for voting for this bill? No.” That is why I support this legislation.

Te Ururoa Flavell:

Can I thank my Treaty partner “Hone” Banks for allowing me to have his final 5 minutes. …

This is not the first time that Māori have encountered controversy around the concept of marriage. In 1888 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision that has been described as “doubtful legally and deplorable socially”. That doubtful and deplorable decision was to reject the customary marriages that had existed mai rānō, and to assume that the marriage law of England took precedence. In fact, the colonial law from another land was considered of such importance that the children of Māori customary marriages were then described as “illegitimate”, yet so significant was the status of customary marriages amongst our people that they continued to be recognised for the purposes of succession to Māori land until 1951. So when opponents of this bill criticise a change to the definition of marriage as contravening our sacred traditions, I would have to say “Whose traditions are we talking about?”

Chester Borrows spoke sort of for and against:

I want to say that today I was pleased to get a text from my good friend Gerard Langford, who texted me and said “Mate, I know this is a big day and I know we see these things differently, but all the best for today.” I said “Thanks, Gerard, you are the gay friend I cite most often.” The fact is that my good friendship with Gerard and his partner, Rangi, as led me along a line that has got me to change my view in respect of gay things. I believe that people who love one another should be with one another and should commit to one another publicly, because I believe that relationships between two people who love one another should be strong, should be publicly committed, and will enable our community to be stronger.

I’ve known Gerard for a long time also. Up until that speech I didn’t know he was gay, which just shows that I have crap gaydar :-)

When Chester said he had changed his view there was huge applause from the gallery as they thought this meant he was now voting for the bill. But not quite:

I will be voting against this bill because I think we should be having the larger debate, and that debate is about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I believe very strongly, for instance, that two people who are married, who are in a heterosexual relationship, should be allowed to be able to do that. I do not believe for one moment that two people who are of the same gender and who commit to one another in any way at all detracts from the 34-year marriage that my wife and I enjoy.

Jonathan Young also spoke respectfully against:

In this House, disagreement is the air we breathe, but it is how we disagree that is important, and by and large this debate has been calmer than many other debates in this House. Tonight I expect that this bill will pass despite my vote, which some will know has not supported its transition through the House thus far. For a long time now I have been very supportive of civil unions, for all the reasons that people are perhaps now applying to the marriage debate. I can empathise with how a couple may want to have the legal recognition—or some institutional formality or support to their relationship—to give them that sense of, even, permanence it may bring, or support. On the occasion of that is a celebration that a wedding can bring. I believe that everybody wants to celebrate their relationships. Your relationship is your business, and I have been happy to support that. I think I was happy when the Civil Union Bill came through, because in a sense it was a new legal recognition that was a mirror of marriage but it perhaps also maintained the age-old institution of marriage. I do think that in societies, traditions are important and have a place. A tradition is a convention, a belief, or a behaviour that stands the test of time. A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily, because it is the touchstone of a value that perhaps younger minds may not fully understand, yet enter into, because it is there. Traditions are what we use to guide people, I believe, into the things of life that have been proven to work.

Kris Faafoi followed:

I am proud to support this bill. To me, it speaks to the heart of the values of what being Pacific in New Zealand is. Those are values of family, love, inclusion, equality, respect, and having pride in who you are. Our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents came to New Zealand to give their families a better life. Vital in that was that they came to these shores and got a fair go, were treated equally but not discriminated against, and were given the respect that every New Zealander deserved. As we know, that was not always the case. There were battles, battles were won, and the Pacific community is now proud and vibrant. Our gay community is also proud and vibrant. They too have battled, and, like all other Kiwis, they deserve the full enjoyment of the values of family, love, inclusion, equality, and respect. I know there are strong religious veins in the Pacific community, and I respect that and the views that they have, but many young, gay Pacific Islanders have found this debate difficult. Many have grown up and maintain strong religious beliefs. They have told me one of the hardest things in the public debate has been hearing that the God that they worship seems to see them differently. My God does not.

Mojo Mathers spoke next, as a mother:

My family has been fortunate to have a beautiful rainbow thread that has woven itself in and out of most of the generations on both sides, and it has created artists and teachers, dreamers and doctors, to name just a few. This wonderful rainbow thread has been continued in the youngest generation and is reflected in my beautiful, brave, loving daughter. Last year she went to her first formal with her girlfriend. They looked absolutely stunning in black and gold with gold make-up. It was with immense pride that I watched them walk into that formal hand in hand, openly declaring their love and affection for each other. They had a wonderful evening and we have many lovely photos to remember it by. For me, one of the highlights of being a mother is when my daughter snuggles up to me on the sofa and shares with me her hopes, her dreams, her aspirations for her future. Like countless other young women, she hopes for love, marriage, children, a good job, and a house with a white picket fence. All of these options are available to her older sister. When this bill passes tonight, which I hope it does, it will give both of my daughters the equal opportunity to marry the person they love.

Mojo’s speech was lovely, and her daughters are very lucky people.

Paul Hutchison followed:

When it comes to marriage, as Rev. Margaret Mayman puts it, the overriding message of Christian faith is that we are all called to practise justice and compassion and to welcome those who are marginalised and oppressed. The biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves provides the mandate for marriage equality. The ethical criterion of a marriage relationship is to do with equality, not the orientation of the partners. In the first reading of this bill I said that despite trying hard, I could not construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or even spiritual reason to vote against it. I am now quite convinced that, at the end of the day, the strength of any human union is about love, tolerance, giving, forgiving, sharing, inclusiveness, commitment, and fairness irrespective of gender. These are universal qualities that have no boundaries.

Then Chris Auchinvole:

As the former Republican governor and current United States ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, wrote in an article outlining the conservative support for same-sex marriage: “Marriage is not an issue that people rationalise through the abstract lens of the law.” This debate that we have been engaged in has highlighted a divide in opinion amongst this nation; between young and old, and secular and spiritual, and even between members of the same faith and the same family. This type of divide is not new and it should not be something that we avoid or dismiss. We have faced many issues of conscience in our nation’s relatively short history, and I think we have grown stronger by facing them together, not always as adversaries but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation that often gives fine examples to the rest of the world. It is because of this shared history that I have the faith that we can seize this opportunity to have discussions around the issues raised by this bill in our homes, our churches, and everywhere honest, thoughtful debate is respected. This bill is not a panacea, but it is an opportunity. If it is to pass—and we should pass this bill—that is just the beginning of a change process,

The last call was split between Ruth Dyson and Moana Mackey/ Ruth said:

The bill ensures that our religious freedoms for celebrants are maintained. We in the Government Administration Committee applied a belts and braces approach, to ensure that the law is beyond doubt in backing the rights of marriage celebrants to decline to marry a couple should such a marriage not be in accordance with their beliefs. The Marriage Act has since 1955 said that celebrants can do that, presumably to protect celebrants from being forced to marry heterosexual couples of different religions or—heaven forbid—marry somebody who was divorced.

And the final speaker was one of the best. Moana Mackey:

I am voting in favour because I cannot find any compelling reason why law-abiding, taxpaying Kiwis in committed, loving relationships should not be able to access the legal and social benefits of marriage purely based on something they cannot change: their sexual orientation. I am voting for this bill because I believe that it will do a lot of good. Just as important, I am voting for this bill because I am utterly and completely convinced that it will do no harm to marriage, to society, or to anyone else, regardless of how they may feel about the issue.

And a personal note:

My late grandmother always had a wonderfully uncomplicated approach to life. At one point she became quite taken with Brendan, the partner of one of my best friends from high school, Peter. She told me that she would not be at all disappointed if Brendan were to become her grandson-in-law. I said to her “But, Grandma, he’s gay.”, to which she responded “Well, your grandfather wasn’t the easiest person to live with, but you make marriage work.”

Lots of laughter at this, and then the vote.

77 MPs voted for the bill to become law and 44 MPs voted against. The same margin as second reading, but two MPs changed. National’s Hamilton East MP David Bennett went from a no to a yes. He explains why he votes yes on Facebook. And Labour Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene went from yes to no. Not yet heard what led to his change.

The galleries rose in a standing ovation that went on and on and on, followed by a short waiata. As this was happening MPs were hugging each other, and also standing and applauding back at all the supporters in the gallery. Very nice scenes as Louisa Wall was hugged and congratulated by even some MPs who voted against the bill. With the exception of Winston, the debate amongst MPs was universally good and respectful. Parliament is at its best with conscience issue debates and it was great to witness it first hand.

As I mentioned above, I’m doing another post on the wider issue, the celebrations afterwards and some personal observations from me.

Tags: ,

78 Responses to “Marriage Bill Third Reading”

  1. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    I woke this morning to find my marriage no longer had any meaning, my neighbor was getting ready to marry his shoe and the sky was filled with brimstone. As I walked to work the streets were in chaos as one of the pillars of our society had been removed.

    Truly a disaster

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    One small step for equality, one giant step for homosexuals.

    Why it was a giant step for some:

    As a homosexual, it’s a giant step. Why? Because now I, and my relationship with my partner, is equal in the eyes of the law. Fully equal.

    It’s a giant step because my transgendered student and friend can now change her birth certificate to female without having to annul her marriage certificate.

    It’s a giant step for all those people who want the legal power to adopt and have their relationships with their partner’s children recognised legally.

    While I wasn’t fussed if it happened last night (as I know New Zealand would have eventually come around), the issue itself was a big deal.

    For those who will be most affected it is a big deal.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I parked my car in a covered parking building last night to protect it from the rain of fire and brimstone I heard was going to happen. Seems to have been a waste of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Tears of joy streaming down my face. What a crock!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Maurice Williamson’s speech was disgraceful and unworthy of a politician. The three parliamentary readings are supposed to be a place for reasoned debate, not a slew of insults and jeering. We’ll see what his constituents make of him at the next election.

    As shunda barunda said in the other thread, I won’t be voting for National ever again until Williamson is removed as an MP.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. freemark (580 comments) says:

    ok, it’s done, move along, there are and have been for a long time more important issues facing NZ. I will be interested to see how many are lining up to get married, perhaps for the first year we can divide the $ cost of the legislation by the numbers at the altar & charge accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Never let the opportunity pass without promoting a mate, Grant Robertson, future PM. Tui ad.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. sparky (235 comments) says:

    I didn’t see anything wrong with Winston Peter’s speech, and agree there should of been a referendum. It comes across to me as a self indulgent Bill, to suit the Gay MP’s, which seems to be a pre requisite in the Labour Party/Greens. One now knows who to vote for in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mandk (993 comments) says:

    “The galleries rose in a standing ovation that went on and on and on, followed by a short waiata. As this was happening MPs were hugging each other, and also standing and applauding back at all the supporters in the gallery. Very nice scenes as Louisa Wall was hugged and congratulated by even some MPs who voted against the bill”
    Joy for some, but all this really shows is how far detached Parliament is from the mood of the nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Copied from General Debate:

    I started out being supportive of gay marriage and I still am a supporter but apathy for the most part has taken over. I was trying to work out why and came up with a few reasons.

    1. Winston of all people summed it up when he said that it appears anyone opposed is called a bigot and a redneck regardless of their reasons. It hasn’t been a fair debate.
    2. Being bombarded in media, blogs and social media by heterosexual people trying to appear progressive and rarely hearing from those who this actually affects.
    3. This is the main reason: to me, marriage is an archaic tradition and I really couldn’t care less if someone took away my right to marry, so I think this is probably why I struggle to understand why people, or people on their behalf, are desperate to be able to join this ancient ritual.
    4. Louisa Wall. Acting like she’s bloody Rosa Parks when this was always going to happen and hundreds of people were lining up to get the credit.
    5. Seriously, just sign the thing off and move on to the important issues like Christchurch, the economy and exposing the Green and Labour fraudsters!

    As I said, I’m a supporter of gay marriage, just not the tactics of some of the activists. Rant over.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I turned on the radio this morning and all I could hear was show tunes. The Irons have taken over!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Regardless of the wrongs or rights of gay marriage, the Greens came out of the law change well in one important way. They – and they are all list MPs — voted as a party rather than voting on conscience.

    Voters can if they wish take the Green position into account at the general election in about 18 months. Similarly with the one-man parties of ACT and United Future.

    Voters cannot respond to the conscience votes of list MPs from National or Labour. List MPs exercising conscience votes don’t answer to voters. Conscience votes under MMP are undemocratic.

    IMHO, another notable thing from the gay marriage debate has been the partisanship of the MSM. It has been overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage, yet the poll on TV3’s Campbell Live last evening was about four to one against it. This is unscientific, but supports the view that more MSM balance was warranted. Today, the Hooerald has Wall-to-Wall coverage as it were. In wordage on the gay marriage bill, it may well exceed its reporting of victory on the day World War II ended.

    The very use of the term “marriage equality” in headlines in print and online proclaims the viewpoint of the gay community. I haven’t noticed anywhere opponents agreeing, conceding, or acknowledging that “equality” was what the vote was about.

    NZ’s newspapers have evolved regionally. In the days of evening papers, there were two in each main centre. Now there is at most one, and rationally the survivors should be trying to be as impartial and fair as possible.

    I gave up on the print media a while ago, and now there will likely be a few born-agains, Catholics, and social conservatives deciding whether to renew subscriptions.

    Gay married couples can help the MSM, of course, by subscribing for two copies of a newspaper per household. Their print friends deserve this.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    I thought most of Grant Robertson’s speech was very good, but at one stage he diverted from the marriage issue to indulge in promoting some barely related policy, I thought this was inappropriate and crappy, detracting from his overall speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    So in 2004 only 3 Nats voted for civil union ,last night 27 voted for parody marriage.

    My goodness,how far that party has fallen.

    I voted for Nats last time round (more to ensure no Labour or Green govt than actually a vote for the Nats)

    Never again!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    With the exception of Winston, the debate amongst MPs was universally good and respectful. Parliament is at its best with conscience issue debates and it was great to witness it first hand.

    That is one of the most revealing statements David has ever made.

    Who’s conscience were they representing? because it wasn’t that of our great nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    One now knows who to vote for in the future.

    @sparky

    I certainly do and it will be for either the Conservative Party or New Zealand First after Winston’s excellent speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    zapper
    Heartily agree. Should have been no more than a technical change and we all move on. Many of us couldn’t care less who gets married as long as they are not forced.
    By the way, homosexual relationships and homosexuality itself were never against the law, only homosexual acts. That was crazy too. Again, most of us don’t care what people want to do with each other.

    The best thing was some good speeches which makes me wonder why we can’t see more of them.

    When was a fascinator ever classy?

    The Campbell Live poll was an eye opener – one of the biggest ever responses and an overwhelming majority against!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    The final speeches reveal just how much we have been ‘had’ by our supposed elected representatives.

    It turns out it was never about marriage, it was about trying (in vain) to stop suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, bullying and every other down trodden meme you can dream up.

    The intention was to gain the social capital necessary for a whole new wave of of left wing propaganda to fill our schools and work paces to make sure the queer community are held in the spot light permanently. Maryan Street practically announced a policy direction.

    If they think this will help anyone, the are profoundly deluded. What they don’t seem to understand is that a much nastier bunch of people are out there than the people that have opposed this bill so far. As soon as they try to force ‘equality’ on the wider population, the reaction will begin, which will inevitably increase prejudice against what will be perceived as “the teachers pets”.

    You trashed my marriage for nothing, but I guess who am I as a straight middle class heterosexual to object? the fact that I am also white just makes me an extra shitty piece of shit to them.

    Social engineering at it’s purist, they aren’t even denying it anymore, they are speaking about it in parliament and the general populace is too damned disengaged to grasp it.
    They achieved this change in a disgraceful manner in my opinion, the ridicule they directed at the NZ public is deeply troubling.

    It’s time for a grass roots movement to displace these arrogant ideologues.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Got to admit, I had something in my eye after the public gallery broke into Pokarekare Ana .
    You shouldn’t throw things away just because they are old, but that doesn’t mean you can’t improve on the past. Very proud of my country today.

    The rest of the world seems to have been touched too by that beautiful song rising up in our house of parliament:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/04/17/new-zealand-spectators-sing-spectators-gay-marriage_n_3100992.html?icid=hp_search_art

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Won’t hurt the Conservative party one little bit.
    It will be interesting to see their poll results going forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mandk (993 comments) says:

    I’m with Aredhel777 and kowtow
    Vote National?
    Never again
    Too many of their MPs are liberals sucking up libertines

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    With the exception of Winston, the debate amongst MPs was universally good and respectful.

    So you reckon Tau Henare respectfully mauled Winston Peters?

    I would call Maurice Williamson’s speech disrespectfully and to top it off he told a barefaced lie.

    Winston, is right. The voters will remember at election time.

    MPs conscience votes is a oxymoron if ever there was one. Most used car salesmen have more of a conscience.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    I remember how the world was going to end with the decriminalising of homosexual acts.
    And then how the world was going to end with the advent of Civil Unions.
    And now, apparently, the world is going to end because of Gay Marriage.
    … and only the stalwart Saint Winston stands as a bulwark against the inexorable slide into perdition for our crumbling edifice of a nation. We are saved!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    That’s the way – split the right with votes for “honest” Winston and Kolun Kwaig.

    Then who do you think the next government will be? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    RRM says the huffington post is “the rest of the world”.

    Fark,even our closest neighbours with a Labor gummint headed by a loon feminist hasn’t seen the light on parody marriage! never mind the rest of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    @Lloyd
    And the world was going to end when NZ deregulated
    And the world was going to end when some state assets were sold
    And the world was going to end when employment contracts came in
    And the world was going to end when 90 day employment trial periods came in
    Etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Meanwhile John Campbell ran a poll.

    17,000 voted (second largest ever John Campbell poll participation).

    22 percent in favour of the bill
    78 percent opposed.

    Democracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Stuff.co.nz ran a poll: 65% in favour, 31% opposed.

    I guess you pick the self-nominating poll you prefer and run with it eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    RRM (12pm) says “That’s the way – split the right”…

    The remainder of a few of Labour’s core constituencies might be thinking of splitting away. Socially conservative blue-collar people, Catholics, religious Pacific Islanders, pensioners, to name a few.

    Labour’s the party of teachers, of lecturers, journalists, … and of gay activists?

    The Stuff poll had far, far fewer respondents, if that is any indication, and they didn’t have to pay. DPF, as a statistics man could tell us whether paying even a little can make a poll more accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (11,507 comments) says:

    Then again if we are going to concern ourselves with flakey polls TVNZ have one too:

    Yes……………23%
    No…………….45%

    But 32% don’t give a stuff one way or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    Polls?

    The poll that matters in these issues are referenda.

    But the pols like to keep power to themselves and away from us “proles ” who can’t be trusted to know what’s best for us.

    Then they wonder why they aren’t trusted!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    So New Zealand is number 13. Really?

    So how is New Zealand a better nation today?

    How does passage of the Wall Bill improve the economic well being of all citizens?

    Had I been an MP, would I have voted for it?

    No, I would have abstained on the grounds that it is gratuitous….. unnecessary – a non event.

    But I will be keeping an eagle eye on cases heard by homosexual Judge Bill Hastings.

    Hastings should have recused himself in the case heard in Masterton (see NZ Herald yesterday) earlier this week.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    It passed, but is it what the people wanted? Not according to the poll on Campbell Live last night, which John Campbell says was the 2nd largest poll result (over 17,000 votes) they ever had.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Griff (7,710 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is a abstract concept for most of us, economic policy however will effect us as all as soon as national looses. I welcome conservatives leaving national however dont believe that the present conservative party is the true home of the NZ fundie right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    The poll that matters in these issues are referenda

    Will you accept the outcome of the asset sales referendum?

    Or do you cherry pick referenda that you think will suit your preferences?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    ps, better put a link to the whole Campbell Live show (thanks to iMP) –

    http://www.tv3.co.nz/CAMPBELL-LIVE-Wednesday-April-17-2013/tabid/3692/articleID/91771/MCat/2908/Default.aspx

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

    The Bullshit continues. I for one am glad that the bill has finally passed so all this dishonest bullshit about “equality” can get a rest. The dishonest bullshit from Kaye about people taking their lives because they can’t marry their gay partner

    We get it that you are a propagandist for the bill, we get it already, OK ?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    Hi. Well, is that the longest heading intro by David or not!! It’s so long that I started skipping the lower comments – the general drift was pretty evident by then anyway.

    Unlike what appears to be most of the population of New Zealand the passage of this Bill and its surrounding rah-rah-ing have left this poster pretty unmoved. Am I really in a minority of one in thinking that this bit of frivolous nonsense is NOT the most important issue to have arisen since New Zealand declared War on Germany and Japan?.

    (I’m tempted to fall back on those old popular indicators of disinterest and boredom-with-this-hackneyed-issue: “Ho hum” and “So what?” But I wont!)

    One thing I will say though, I was a bit surprised at David’s evident glee at the passage of ‘that Bill!!”

    I would have thought that a serious and thinking commentator – such as he normally affects to be – would have been less effusive in their obvious delight at the outcome of the issue, and would have taken a more middle of the road stance – he being a sort of public commentator and all that.

    Anyway, its done now, so can we please get back to focussing on the more normal and pressing issues of the moment?.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Pete George,
    The difference between the asset sales issue and the mock-marriage issue is that the former was put to the electorate and the latter wasn’t.
    The nation spoke on asset sales, but it was not given a chance to have a proper say on mock-marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Akaroa,
    You might have missed DPF’s blog from yesterday which made clear that he is a propogandist, not a commentator, on the issue of mock-marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    Louisa Wall ” I would like to thank my supporters David Farrer and John Key”

    Welcome to New Zealand, a country where it’s illegal to smoke a fag, but you can marry one!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    mandk – It’s interesting that you feel you are entitled to have a say on someone else’s “mock marriage.”

    One of the main reasons I support the bill is; who the hell am I to say gays CAN’T get married if they want to?

    Gays serve our country in the armed forces, I haven’t. Who am I to tell one of THEM they shouldn’t be allowed to marry their partners in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    pete g

    I think ,given the divisive nature of the asset sale legislation ,that a referendum would be a very good idea.

    This should have been done at the time of the GE. It would have meant that neither side could claim the GE was or wasn’t a mandate for the sale. GE’s are not necessarily a mandate for a specific policy and so refereda should be held on important legislation.
    Politicians have become increasingly unworthy and self serving types (which ever colour) and so direct democracy becomes even more important.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “Welcome to New Zealand, a country where it’s illegal to smoke a fag, but you can marry one!”

    :) clever

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mandk (993 comments) says:

    RRM
    And who are you to tell me that I can’t call it mock-marriage?
    Parliament can legislate to make dogs entitled to be treated as cats, but if my Rover still says woof and cocks his leg to pee, he will never be more than a mock-cat.
    You are trying to oppress me.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Forget all the baloney about “homophobia” causing suicide.

    Simply think about the obvious here:

    -If you preach the biblical truth on adultery, adulterers will get upset and offended.
    -If you preach the biblical truth on theft, thieves will get upset and offended.
    -If you preach the biblical truth on arson, arsonists will get upset and offended.
    -If you preach the biblical truth on murder, murderers will get upset and offended.

    We do! And we do it daily without suicide happening!

    So of course if you preach the biblical truth on homosexuality, homosexuals will get upset and offended.

    So what?

    We must care enough about the lost – including homosexuals – to lovingly yet firmly tell them the truth. We must care enough to offend if need be. The eternal destiny of these folks is at stake here – according to MP’s JUST last night!

    As to the foolishness that by preaching God’s truth we are alienating homosexuals and offending them, and driving them to despair, let me just say this:

    Should we stop preaching truth because it makes people feel bad?

    Jesus spoke truth and it made people feel bad all the time. The crowds were always divided because of him, and many hated him for speaking truth.
    Indeed, they crucified him because they were so offended and mad at him for throwing the spotlight on their sin. Simply read John 3:19-21.

    Romans 1:14-25: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.”

    And despite all the evangellyfish leaders who think we should just cave in on this issue, it is the other way around:

    We need to stand firm here.
    Now is not the time to reject God and deny the clear teachings of his Word.

    Now more than ever we must bravely stand on Scripture and proclaim it to a world going to hell in a hand basket:

    Marriage is about bringing the sexes together to protect children from false prophets: MP’s – and suicide! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    he is a propogandist, not a commentator, on the issue of mock-marriage.

    This is nothing personal, but an observation. It is fascinating how two of the National Party’s biggest propagandists for this abomination are 1) a man who has never had children or been married and 2) a man who having put his wife thru the wringer for so long decides one day to repay that loyalty by cheating on her. If that’s not lamentable enough, it has been whispered that the plutocratic father-in-law had to offer the lady financial incentives to get her to stay on.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. nasska (11,507 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck

    Your comment is personal & adds nothing to the discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. xy (187 comments) says:

    Kissing is unnatural. The mouth is biologically for eating, drinking and breathing, and is filthy with germs. Pressing your food-hole against another person’s food-hole is perverted, no matter how ‘pleasant’ it might be. Inserting your tongue into another person’s food-hole is utterly disgusting.

    And don’t get me started on touching breasts.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I didn’t say you can’t call it “mock-marriage” mankd, please at least try to be honest.

    I said it’s interesting that you feel entitled to an opinion about other people’s marriages – and what’s more, entitled to an opinion that some people’s marriages should not be allowed.

    If that’s “oppression” in your mind, I wonder if you have ever considered how tax-paying, law abiding gays must feel about not being allowed to get married…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s awesome to see that gays will now be able to make the same mistake that straight couples have been making for many years. Divorce lawyers will be rubbing their hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @Urban Redneck

    Would you please email me some details on no2?

    chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    xy (83) Says:
    April 18th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    Kissing is unnatural. The mouth is biologically for eating, drinking and breathing, and is filthy with germs. Pressing your food-hole against another person’s food-hole is perverted, no matter how ‘pleasant’ it might be. Inserting your tongue into another person’s food-hole is utterly disgusting.

    And don’t get me started on touching breasts.

    Reverend KY, My lady friend likes me to do her up the bum while kissing and touching her breasts.

    Will we burn in hell ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    @ Chuck
    Let me have a dig around as to where I saw that snippet of information and I’ll pass it on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Should we stop preaching truth because it makes people feel bad?

    Harriet,

    No, absolutely not. Continue to preach what you believe. Just don’t try to use the power of the state to impose those views on others. If you convince them with your words, fine. Don’t use force.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    No, absolutely not. Continue to preach what you believe. Just don’t try to use the power of the state to impose those views on others. If you convince them with your words, fine. Don’t use force.

    Well said.

    Keep the government out of the bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Well Chuck’s going to vote for Winston.

    FFS

    or Colin Craig. I saw him briefly on TV this morning, hes fucking mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Continue to preach what you believe. Just don’t try to use the power of the state to impose those views on others.

    The problem is that the state is imposing its views on the majority without a mandate.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    If that’s “oppression” in your mind, I wonder if you have ever considered how tax-paying, law abiding gays must feel about not being allowed to get married…?

    RRM, That is a weak argument. Men are not allowed to hang out in the ladies changing rooms, even gay men. There are lots of things we are not “allowed” to do based on sexuality & gender. There are no such thing as “rights” there is only what we make.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    @flipper

    So how is New Zealand a better nation today?

    The obvious reply is how is it worse off this morning? The sky didn’t fall, I think I’m still married, As far as I know my kids havn’t been accosted on the way to school to be turned into homo’s.

    I will be keeping an eagle eye on cases heard by homosexual Judge Bill Hastings.

    I’m sure Bill will be giving a big flying fuck over this flipper, I would doubt if he will sleep tonight knowing you have your “eagle eye” out . What a pompous twat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Well Chuck’s going to vote for Winston

    PEB, how do you know how I am going to vote? If you read what I have said repeatedly you would not say that unless you just wanted to make things up?

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

    I’m sure Bill will be giving a big flying fuck over this flipper, I would doubt if he will sleep tonight knowing you have your “eagle eye” out .

    I think you are right for once. Hastings is unlikely to be giving a big flying fuck about much. After all it would appear that this low life judge would not worry about putting his former wife’s life at risk by rogering his buddy or visa versa and then having sex with his wife.

    No bloody wonder the 38% of the public has lost confidence when such people get shoulder tapped for the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird
    April 18th, 2013 at 11:39 am

    certainly do and it will be for either the Conservative Party or New Zealand First after Winston’s excellent speech

    Just what I read above Chuck. I don’t need to make stuff up Chuck you keep me entertained just being you

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    What Captain America says ;)

    Doesn’t matter what the press says.
    Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say.
    Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

    This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or consequences.

    When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world

    — No! You move!”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,176) Says: April 18th, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    Fletch, that is exactly what the pro gay marriage crowd would say.

    “Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say.
    Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. ”

    Ok so your not a big fan of democracy. Just do not complain about a “majority” not wanting the Bill to pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (7,710 comments) says:

    Is a moral majority :wink:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Kea, but it also talks about planting yourself beside the river of Truth.

    Is there any Truth in two men getting ‘married’?
    No, it goes against the innate Nature of marriage – the biological and logical Truth of marriage.

    Oh, and I am a big fan of democracy, but do I think democracy triumphed last night? No. If they’d had a referendum and discovered the wishes of the country, but they daren’t, as they knew the voting would be against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Below, a quote from my Facebook from a gentleman attending the University of Auckland School of Theology –

    “Tonight marks a victory for moral relativism, popularized sloganism and the ultimate decline of reasoned argument and logical discourse in New Zealand. Without a single refutable premise, Parliament has reached a decision on an issue which is ultimately fuelled by self-satisfaction with little regard to the sanctity of the institution itself.”

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    “the sanctity of the institution itself”

    LOL – things that I like are too “sacred” to ever be discussed or changed. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Oh, and I am a big fan of democracy, but do I think democracy triumphed last night? No. If they’d had a referendum and discovered the wishes of the country, but they daren’t, as they knew the voting would be against them.

    But…

    Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

    With that sort of thinking it is no wonder you lost this one !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    Next up: Polygamy, lowering the age of consent (must not discriminate against pedophiles) and who knows what else when the country’s leaders are clearly immoral scumbags.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Below, a quote from my Facebook from a gentleman attending the University of Auckland School of Theology –

    “Tonight marks a victory for moral relativism, popularized sloganism and the ultimate decline of reasoned argument and logical discourse in New Zealand. Without a single refutable premise, Parliament has reached a decision on an issue which is ultimately fuelled by self-satisfaction with little regard to the sanctity of the institution itself.”

    Exactly.

    Heh. Sounds like we have some mutual friends, I know who posted that. :P And yeah it’s spot on.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (7,710 comments) says:

    University of Auckland School of Theology
    Is that were they study talking to imaginary friends?
    How quaint
    :lol:
    And talking to imaginary friends gives you a right to discern morals for the rest of us?
    Me I would much rather examine ethics from a more informed standpoint than what someones imaginary friend once said.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Don’t talk such crap RRM, gays in NZ have been able to get married in NZ and what’s more always have been. That they don’t particularly care to enter into such an arrangement with the opposite sex is the nature of marriage, or was.

    I, too, felt something when the gallery etc broke into song, only it was in my throat not my eye, and I really didn’t like the taste. Tacky is as tacky does.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Correct Ed, they just had to marry somebody else of the opposite sex, not their partner in life who they wanted to be with.

    What a great deal huh? :-P

    How selfish of the gays, demanding the “special treatment” of being allowed to marry the person they actually want to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The bigots have been beaten and so will whine and scowl and retreat to their own wife beating,kiddie fiddling irrelevant lives in Suburbaton.

    In a years time no one will care or remember why this was even an issue

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @The Scorned

    A shame your boyfriend can not come here and marry you. hahaha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Next up: Polygamy

    LiberalismIsASin, Why not, provided it is between consenting adults ?

    Trying to taint that with reference to peodophiles is disingenuous.

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