Stealing the limelight!

April 22nd, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Clips of Mr Williamson’s speech have had 1.5 million views on YouTube, and there were now versions with Spanish and Chinese subtitles. It was tweeted about by celebrities including DeGeneres, Stephen Fry, Perez Hilton and Ronan Keating.

A spokesman for Mr Williamson said they were waiting to hear back from the show’s producers for more details.

In his speech on Wednesday, Mr Williamson, the long-standing MP for Pakuranga, made humorous references to “a big gay rainbow” over his electorate and said the Marriage Amendment Bill was a positive step.

He has since been getting accustomed to his newfound status as a poster boy for gay rights, for which he has received praise from the United Kingdom, Australia and America, offers to stand in as Governor in several states as well as appearances on various television shows.

The already married Mr Williamson said the New York Times called him one of the few “openly gay” MPs in New Zealand. “It’s gone a bit far,” he said. “My wife wanted to know whether the New York Times knew something more than I did.”

Green MP Kevin Hague, who helped Labour’s Louisa Wall with the bill, said there were no sour grapes that Mr Williamson was getting all the attention.

“Louisa and I – and this is tongue in cheek – gave pretty good speeches too but at every stage we’ve been upstaged by straight National Party men. There was in the first reading, in the second reading and now . But there’s no resentment about that. It’s funny, that’s all.”

He said some people might have been surprised by Mr Williamson, but in Mr Hague’s time heading the Aids Foundation in the 1990s he had worked with Mr Williamson as Associate Health Minister. “He has always been progressive on issues like gay rights, including supporting needle and syringe exchange when it was not popular.”

It is ironic about Hutch, Auchie and Maurice being the stand out speakers at each reading. They have the following in common:

  • All heterosexual men
  • All married
  • All have children, nine between them
  • All are National MPs
  • All in their 60s

An unlikely trio to be poster boys for .   :-)

Tags: , , ,

74 Responses to “Stealing the limelight!”

  1. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    I had posted transcript and a video link of Auchinvole’s speech and getting a resurgence of interest:
    Chris Auchinvole’s Marriage Equality Bill speech

    Also transcript and video of Williamson’s:
    Maurice Williamson on Marriage Bill – “be ye not afraid”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    I love how our crap media need nobody celebrities to endorse their latest favourite cause or unlikely hero.

    Who the hell are De Generes,Fry,Hilton or God help us Ronan Keating?

    The people that should really matter to an MP, a representative (after all that’s what parliament is the House of Representatives) are his constituents.

    And Williamson went out of his way to mock and insult them.

    http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/buffoon-of-week.html

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Now here’s a funny thing, Ellen DeGeneres, Stephen Fry, Perez Hilton and Ronan Keating are not New Zealand voters, whereas I am.

    And while these people might be impressed with the empty rhetoric of that speech I am not and you can count on it I will be voting accordingly

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Apparently it’s The End of the Same Sex Marriage Debate, but the gloating, self-congratulation, and mockery directed at those who wouldn’t capitulate is destined to stay with us for some time to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    An unlikely trio to be poster boys for same sex marriage.

    Unlikely yes, but what a wonderful display of how many New Zealanders are prepared to move forward together – rather than a nation divided by bigotry and inequality.

    As one 79 year old widower told me on Wednesday night after the Bill was passed – “this is great – it gives me more options”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    He’s definitely the King Julian of NZ politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    I think you should make it clear they are all in “opposite sex relationships” as the term marriage is now really only used for same sex marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    I would disagree with Mr Hague’s assertion that he gave a “pretty good speech”.

    Many MPs on both sides of the debate came out of this process (so to speak :)) in a good light. Whatever their view may be, they have been able to have genuine conversations, have shown respect for opposing views, and have treated their opponents with dignity and respect.

    Kevin Hague, sadly, is not one of them.

    Kevin Hague has come out of this looking very bad indeed. He has been derisive of anybody who disagrees with him, painting all opponents as extremist religious fundies or people who are afraid of the possible outcomes. He has accused his opponents of whipping up hysteria and panic, of engaging in blackmail and playing on people’s fear of being seen as being on the wrong side of history.

    And sadly, even in his speech on the night in Parliament – which he claims was “pretty good” – he stated that there was no room for taking a middle ground – that history would record whether his fellow MPs stood on his side, or stood on the side of “extremism, threats and blackmail.” I found it somewhat ironic that someone who accuses his opponents of whipping up fear, should himself attempt to intimidate people by inferring that they will go down in history as that nasty person who voted the wrong way.

    Kevin Hague has shown a rather bitter, mean-spirited attitude to anybody who dares disagree with him, and has made sweeping generalisations in an attempt to belittle his opponents. How sad he could not be more like some of his fellow MPs who genuinely acknowledged other people’s viewpoints.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    The radical left are systematically sabotaging and derailing all of National’s policy framework – mining, education reform, asset sales.
    But as long as a handful of National MP’s can strut around and parade themselves as the fag-stags du jour, then that’s more important.

    OK, got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see if the people chose to re-elect this MP. He has after all, mocked his constituents in public for disagreeing with him. It’s quite possible that most people will not be bothered of course, given he was mocking people who were unpopular (and yes, not particuarly rational in many cases) in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Prince (105 comments) says:

    Unlikely posterboys ? Not at all. All have lead full, interesting lives, and are perfectly positioned to take a mature stance on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Have you renounced your illegal straight marriage yet Andrei?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    @scrubone and others: I would have thought that the votes that someone like Williamson would pick up in the centre would more than outweigh those that he loses on the bigoted bit of the right. I thought his speech was pretty good humoured, and poked reasonably gentle fun at those who were more rabid, he was much more understanding of those who were concerned but not rabid.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Kevin Hague has come out of this looking very bad indeed. He has been derisive of anybody who disagrees with him, painting all opponents as extremist religious fundies or people who are afraid of the possible outcomes.

    Kevin Hague has shown a rather bitter, mean-spirited attitude to anybody who dares disagree with him, and has made sweeping generalisations in an attempt to belittle his opponents.

    Claims someone bitterly making sweeping generalisations trying to belittle an opponent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    I have no problem with Williamson’s point of view, even if I disagree with it.
    However, the way he mocked people who did not hold to his line, and mocking the Catholic Church, puts him among the contemptible politicians in this country.

    Actually, I have never liked Williamson – I have always thought him to be arrogant and self serving.

    I hope his constituents kick him out on his arse at the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    Long live Labour Lite’s new poster boy! Now pass the bucket.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    He’s my local MP.

    I don’t feel mocked.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    PaulL – The privacy of ballot box will be the referendum that the SSM supporters really, really didn’t want.

    That little closed space is where the verbal abuse and taunts of “bigot!” have no impact.

    It will be interesting to see how National’s social engineering is rewarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    Mr Hague’s time heading the Aids Foundation in the 1990s he had worked with Mr Williamson as Associate Health Minister

    I wonder if Mr Williamson as Associate Health Minister, ever asked Mr Hague the relative health risks of normal vaginal intercourse and taking it up the arse? If he did he would not have got the answers I have.

    I got the following with the help of a friendly MP.

    Question: What are the Ministry of Health’s calculations on the probability of a woman being infected while having sex with an HIV+ man?

    Portfolio: Health, Minister: Hon Pete Hodgson, Date Lodged: 20/03/2006
    Answer Text: The Ministry of Health has not made calculations on the probability of a woman being infected while having sex with an HIV+ man.
    Estimates from international literature suggest that the risk of transmission of HIV to a woman from vaginal intercourse with an HIV + man without condom use is 10 per 10,000 exposures.

    Question: What are the Ministry of Health’s calculations on the probability of a man being infected while having sex with an HIV+ woman?

    Portfolio: Health, Minister: Hon Pete Hodgson, Date Lodged: 20/03/2006
    Answer Text: The Ministry of Health has not made calculations on the probability of a man being infected while having sex with an HIV+ woman.
    Estimates from international literature suggest that the risk of transmission of HIV to a man from penile vaginal intercourse without condom use with an HIV+ woman is 5 per 10,000 exposures.

    Question: What are the Ministry of Health’s calculations on the probability of a man being infected while having sex with an HIV+ man?

    Portfolio: Health, Minister: Hon Pete Hodgson, Date Lodged: 20/03/2006
    Answer Text: The Ministry of Health has not made calculations on the probability of a man
    being infected while having sex with an HIV+ man.
    Estimates from international literature suggest that for receptive anal intercourse with an HIV+ man without condom use the risk of transmission of HIV is 50 per 10,000 exposures.

    Below is a quote from

    Dr Lush in an interview in Investigate, July 2005.
    LUSH: I’ll refer you to the Cochrane Collaboration on condom use, which shows an 80% reduction in HIV incidence.

    My comments

    Based on this information the risk of infection for receptive anal intercourse with an HIV+ man is 1 in 200 for unprotected sex per exposure and 1 in 1000 for protected sex per exposure. If my conclusion is correct that the risk of infection for receptive anal intercourse with an HIV+ man the risk of transmission over a period of a year is 14%, then this is matter of serious concern. I quote Mr Hodgson at the end of this email. The number of exposures and the condom effectiveness can be altered in the spreadsheet. If one looks at 5 or 10 years with an HIV+ partner and say 150 exposures per year the risk of infection would be 53% and 78% respectively in the case of homosexual intercourse. In the case of female – male, and male – female transmission the risk risks would be 14% and 26% percent respectively.

    It is also worth noting that condoms offer less protection for other STDs.

    If my calculations are correct I hope you would agree that the “safe sex” message given by the Ministry of Health is very dangerous. It would also look like the current legal situation where someone who knows they are HIV+ does not have to tell their partner provided the uses a condom should be changed.

    My calculations:

    I think my calculations are basic high school probability, it should work the same as the odds of tossing a die playing Russian roulette. I think Russian roulette is a good analogy. Let’s say there is one live bullet in the cylinder. The odds of living are 5 out of 6. If you spin the cylinder 3 time the odds of living are 1 – (5/6)cubed or 42.1%.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Chuck – you seem preoccupied with the risk of catching HIV from gay men for some reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    Chuck – of course Williamson didn’t ask that, because he’s not a creepy little bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/maurice-williamson-looking-pretty-stupid-after-floods/

    So not only did the bumbling idiot not know he had any portfolios, so called ‘god’ told him off and Elen Degenerate rescinded her invitation.

    Sorry to “rain” on your little gay parade DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    ‘Kleva Kiwi’ – do you get your news from ‘The Onion’ as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    1. He’s not my opponent. I honestly thought you were able to avoid overly simplistic perspectives like that, especially given your constant claims to be neither left nor right.

    2. I’m not bitter on the topic of same-sex marriage in general, and I am confident that if you read my posts on the topic they will show that. I am simply pointing out that of the various MPs who have spoken on the subject, some have acquitted themselves with dignity and understanding and acceptance. Kevin Hague has not.

    3. And speaking of making sweeping generalisations and trying to belittle someone – I suggest you remove the plank from your own eye. For that matter, maybe you should reread some of Kevin Hague’s writings on the topic over the past few months.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Perhaps the most exasperating part of this whole issue is how supposedly intelligent, politically astute people genuinely believe homosexual marriage is all about love and fairness and families and rights. It’s not. For nigh on 50 years homosexual rights groups have campaigned for the right to live outside of the institutions of marriage and family life. They claimed marriage to be a worthless piece of paper, a patriarchal construct used to subjugate women, and they even called it institutionalized rape. Now all of a sudden marriage become a fundamental human right and an enduring source of self-esteem that they all want to partake in ?

    Homosexual militants want marriage destroyed, and in these times one doesn’t have to look to far to find the evidence. Here’s lesbian journalist/activist Masha Gessen speaking in recently:

    It’s a no-brainer that homosexuals should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

    The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

    BTW – This lady has three children, and those children have five parents. I thinks it’s three mothers, Gessen herself, her current partner and her ex-partner, a father whose only role so far was to ejaculate into a turkey baster and some bloke in Russia. I didn’t say any of this would be easy.

    http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    Mr Elbow (28) Says:
    April 22nd, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    ‘Kleva Kiwi’ – do you get your news from ‘The Onion’ as well?

    Its Satire. Its ment to be ‘tongue in cheek’ hence all the puns

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    Pretty feeble attempt at covering your backside there, KK.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    Chuck – you seem preoccupied with the risk of catching HIV from gay men for some reason?

    No. However, the homosexual militants are responsible for the infections and deaths of thousands from HIV and Hep C in the mid 80s in North America. If New Zealand they have only been responsible for the deaths of a few innocent people. The AIDS Foundation lobbied against screening migrants and refugees for HIV successfully until too many innocent people became infected and the policy was finally changed.

    There are militant homosexuals here and overseas still who keep lobbying for homosexuals to be allowed to donate blood even though the period and one has engaged in homosexual sex or prostitution has been dropped from 10 to 5 years. The still want risk the public’s life against the view of experts at the New Zealand Blood Services.

    RRM & Mr Elbow, do you think NZ Blood Services from homosexuals and if so why?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    It is interesting that this bill has brought out the worst in some especially the derision and mocking of those who dare to have an opposing opinion to their own. Williamson’s speech was in that category, a speech built largely around mocking and deriding those who have a different view to his own so I find it hard to laud it as being particularly clever or entertaining.

    Nor do I buy into the celebrity endorsement thing partly because I have always struggled to reconcile the concept that being a good entertainer/actor/musician suddenly makes you an expert on everything else.

    Williamson really came across as a bit of a condescending dick and I am sure that his caucus colleagues who voted against the bill were thrilled that they were grouped in with those Williamson put the boot into.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    From the only in America file . .

    Students at the Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, NY:

    Young girls at a New York middle school were instructed to ask one another for a lesbian kiss and boys were given guidance on how to tell if women are sluts during an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, angry parents allege.

    The special health class was held last week at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, NY. The students were separated by gender – with students from Bard College leading the workshops. Parents are especially furious after their young daughters were told that it was perfectly normal for 14-year-old girls to have sex and there was nothing their parents could do to intervene.

    The boys and girls were also given a sexual vocabulary primer – that included words like ‘pansexual’ and ‘genderqueer.’ ‘I am furious,’ said Mandy Coon, whose daughter was in the class. ‘I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s okay for her to have sex?’

    Coon told Fox News that her daughter was upset by the classroom lecture and was confused about why she had to ask another girl for a kiss. ‘She told me, “Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough – now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’ Coon said.

    All this is horrific enough, but notice how the propagandists operate: they seek to do all this by stealth. They refuse to inform parents about what they are doing, and actually take umbrage when concerned parents find out about it and make a stink. Now why am I reminded about how totalitarian societies operate here? Why is it that police states have always sought to separate children from their parents, and ensure that the state alone is the only intellectual and moral educator of the child?

    All the tyrants have clearly stated that this is what they desire. Said Lenin, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.” Or as Adolf Hitler boasted: “Give me the keys to the school books and I will give you the keys to the nation.”

    Brave New World indoctrination is alive and well in our public schools. All the more reason for every parent who does not want his or her children to become statist PC zombies to pull them out now.

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/04/21/lets-force-schoolkids-to-do-lesbian-kissing/

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    ‘Equality childhoods’ – where ? :cool:

    It is a pity deluded leaders such as Williamson and the rest of the NZ 77 do not listen more closely to what other homosexuals are actually saying. Many have been quite forthright in proclaiming that marriage is just not on, and is in fact wrong. Why do these homosexuals never get a hearing in the lamestream media?

    Of course we know the answer to that, so it is up to the alternative media to shed some light here.

    “Many homosexuals have admitted that they most certainly do not want marriage. Many have said if they do get marriage, it will be bent out of recognisable form when they get done with it.

    But here I want to highlight just one homosexual leader who has showed a bit of honesty on this matter. I refer to Doug Mainwaring who recently wrote a piece entitled, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”. It is well worth quoting portions of it here:

    “The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to ‘old-fashioned’ religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

    “I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.”

    As to experience he shares how he once was in a heterosexual marriage, but that ended. He says this about the impact on children in a homosexual household: “One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on.

    “With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.

    “There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.”

    He continues, “Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually.

    “They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.”

    He finishes, “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

    “Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable ‘social units,’ and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.” ”

    Equality is not about selfishness, infact if anything, the opposite, selflessness – exactly what YOU expected of us – so why arn’t you prepared to show that towards children? and walk away from ‘parenting’? :cool: :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Harriet & Urban Redneck, is it possible that same sex couples actually have a diversity of opinions, and that some want to marry and some don’t? So whilst some of them think that marriage is a dreadful thing, others want it?

    If that were the case, what relevance would your quotes from some crazy lefties who happen to be gay have to this discussion?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nookin (3,344 comments) says:

    I listened to Williamson. I have not listened to Hague. As far as I can see Williamson did not mock anybody but simply pointed out in jestful fashion that there was a lack of logic accompanying some of the views in opposition and that the contra arguments (fire and brimstone, drought and whatever) did seem to lack the capacity for empirical assessment.

    The rain still came. Williamson and those voting in favour have not been reduced to ashes. Homosexuality has not become compulsory. There does not seem to have been hordes of hitherto closet homosexuals running rampant and I feel no more or less threatened in my own marriage (despite having been somewhat tardy and arranging delivery of firewood for the winter) than was previously the case.

    Who cares what they call it. It is what they do with that the accounts and if it makes any sort of relationship stronger then so be it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mandk (993 comments) says:

    “It is ironic about Hutch, Auchie and Maurice being the stand out speakers at each reading. They have the following in common:

    » All heterosexual men
    » All married
    » All have children, nine between them
    » All are National MPs
    » All in their 60s”

    More to the point, do they also subscribe in common to the liberal agenda of making it easier to kill pre-born babies and exterminating old people?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck#

    “… Why is it that police states have always sought to separate children from their parents, and ensure that the state alone is the only intellectual and moral educator of the child?…”

    The NZ Teachers union already educates 92% of kiwi kids through the state school system.

    If just 20% of the so called ‘rich pricks’ leave taking their kids with them[80% of rich pricks only have adult children] then the state system will teach about 100% of NZ’s kids.

    Outside of the family, and without religion, the only people who really have any influence on children at all, are the NZ Teachers Union. State Pre schools and State Universities will too. Social workers too.

    All this is done while NZ’s mothers -and fathers- have more important things to do, like being away from home for 50hrs a week, and 20 of them to pay for the government.

    The government pays the UNIONS’ members’ wages, and wages to education academics, and social workers, and health ‘professionals’ to develop other peoples children into adults, and help ‘remedy’ any ‘disorders’ that are listed in the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders. Homosexuality not being one!

    That’s a lot of ‘union fees’ that parents pay – FOR NO SAY! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Check this out for some twisted thinking-

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/share-your-news-and-views/8571873/I-m-not-turning-my-toddler-gay

    Woman dresses her baby boy in heels and girls clothes- and claims she would be “thrilled” if he grew up and married another man. Lady he is going to have a tough time once he starts school!

    Like the old song goes- “I’m a Boy I’m a Boy but my Ma won’t admit it..”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    More to the point, do they also subscribe in common to the liberal agenda of making it easier to kill pre-born babies and exterminating old people?

    :???: How on earth is that “more to the point”???

    I thought the thread was about speeches in the readings of the gay marriage bill, not the general evils of liberalism…?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mandk (993 comments) says:

    RRM,
    How can you say that if you read to the end of the blog?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Gloating again!

    Pass the sick bag…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    BTW, Williamson’s always been a liberal egg…what else is new?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    I hear how women’s refuge are not happy with what is happening to the rugby player who allegedly assaulted his partner. I also hear others think he should have been charge with the more serious change of assault on a women.

    Do you liberals who are so concerned about equality think the law should be changed so the the maximum penalty is the same if a man assaults a woman or a woman assaults a man?

    I would be very interested in hearing the view of any woman who supports homosexual marriage and adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    the law should be changed so the the maximum penalty is the same if a man assaults a woman or a woman assaults a man?

    What is the difference?

    And is there any other difference if the victim or the offender is homosexual or transgender?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OTGO (551 comments) says:

    Longknives – she should get her kid to listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPRGDwlfqs – endlessly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    Common assault max 1 year

    Assault on child or woman max 2 years

    I do not know if one can be charges with assault on a woman if it is a drag queen. Maybe a lawyer can advise.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    It was tweeted about by celebrities including DeGeneres, Stephen Fry, Perez Hilton and Ronan Keating.

    Guess which one is the straight? All the other three are gay.

    So, no surprises they liked his derisive comments and apparent contempt toward those who disagree with same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Those bigots opposed to SSM deserve contempt….they want to restrict the rights of others for no good reason but superstitious batshit….so to hell with them….laugh away.

    More to the point, do they also subscribe in common to the liberal agenda of making it easier to kill pre-born babies and exterminating old people?

    You mean the individual rights and freedom agenda that says Women have a right to control their own bodies over blobs of goo…? And that elderly people have the right to control and end their lives when they wish to…?

    Soul Socialists of the right stripe….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    ps, I would like to correct Mr Williamson’s high school science calculations about the temperature of Hell and how long he would survive there (as per his speech). The body can be destroyed and is discarded when we die – the soul is immortal and cannot be destroyed. It ends up either in Heaven or in Hell – to eternal joy or eternal pain.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    scorned
    you’re also a blob of goo,just a bit more complex blob of goo

    All goo is equal but some goo is more equal than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    From America – the term “master bedroom” is slowly being phased out because it is considered racist and sexist.
    Yes, really…

    The “master suite” is being phased out — not from our homes, but from our lexicon.
    I surveyed 10 major Washington-area homebuilders and found that six no longer use the term “master” in their floor plans to describe the largest bedroom (with its own bathroom) in the house. They have replaced it with “owner’s suite” or “owner’s bedroom” or, in one case, “mastre bedroom.”

    Why? In large part for exactly the reason you would think: “Master” has connotation problems, in gender (it skews toward male) and race (the slave master).

    http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2013/04/in-residential-real-estate-bid.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “And that elderly people have the right to control and end their lives when they wish to…? ”

    And people like you could encourage their parents – the only way you could make so money. You know so much how come you aren’t rich?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. cossackstomper (24 comments) says:

    What both interests, and saddens me about this whole affair is how supposedly intelligent people such as DF, Key and National advisers believe its a good idea for willamson to appear on Ellens show.
    Willamson has already come across as condescending prick once!
    Which will cost him and national thousands of votes. Why on earth would they want it all stirred up again. Labours strategist must be laughing with glee at John Key and Labour lite trying to be all things to all people ,and appease the Gay sect. Which is a very small part of our Population. Most of us live normal and natural lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mandk (993 comments) says:

    The Scorned,

    Pre-born babies are not blobs of glue, so you must be talking about ejaculate. Women do have the right to control their bodies over ejaculate -they can abstain from sex or, if they choose not to, they can use contraceptives.

    And nor are we really talking about elderly people having the right to control and end their lives. If “euthanasia” is permitted, it would not be long before old people are pressurised into ending it. You can hear the doctor now: “You’ve had a good innings, haven’t you? And you’re not going to get better, so don’t you think we need to think about saying goodbye? It’s going to be very difficult for your family, otherwise.” Similar sorts of pressures are applied right now to women who are suspected of carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome and the like.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Wonder what Ellen would make of Williamson upon reading this ?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4105599/Minister-made-Muslim-jokes-before-his-racism-remarks

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Williamson does not have any children (that he talks about). The three children who live(d) with him are adopted. He’s failed to reproduce, pass on his genes; biologically a failure. The few people I have spoken to who go along with this redefinition are divorced.

    The failed got their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “And that elderly people have the right to control and end their lives when they wish to…? ”

    Euthanasia is not about anyones ‘rights’!

    It’s about doctors saying who dies and when!

    Not liberal doctors – legislation of doctors by liberal polticians!

    But the legislation, just like abortion legislation, will be ‘vague and broad’ so when the wall of silence is built by health ‘professionals’ around euthanasia under ‘privacy laws’ – liberal doctors can then expand on it.

    They won’t get this through.

    The government can’t become a killing machine of innocent babies at one end of society and sick people throughout society, based on the decisions of liberal doctors. Depressed pregnant women. And frail people.

    Women taking charge of their bodies, mind, and soul, instead of being lazy with contraception, and elderly people accepting the inevitable, the advancements in medicine, and a greatfulness to those before us who have helped lengthen our life term, and who didn’t have euthanasia when they were sick, is at the very least, what is expected in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,198) Says:
    April 22nd, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    ps, I would like to correct Mr Williamson’s high school science calculations about the temperature of Hell and how long he would survive there (as per his speech). The body can be destroyed and is discarded when we die – the soul is immortal and cannot be destroyed. It ends up either in Heaven or in Hell – to eternal joy or eternal pain.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==

    So you know this to be true from real life experience. then?

    Have you been watching pixies and skyfairies too much?

    That will get you jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Euthanasia is not about anyones ‘rights’! It’s about doctors saying who dies and when!

    Well, it isn’t.

    But you knock yourself out wrestling that strawman.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    V2, if you believe in God, then you believe in the Bible.
    It’s pretty plain there.

     “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;  for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e]take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ~ Matthew 25: 41-46

     As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.  They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear. ~ Matthew 13: 40-43

     they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” ~ Revelation 14: 10-11

    —-

    [...] Hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die,
        and the fire is not quenched.’[c]
    49 Everyone will be salted with fire. ~ Mark 9:48-49

    Not meaning to scare ya, but Williamson brought up the topic of Hell himself, so I might as well correct him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    graham, I have not seen Kevin Hague stoop anywhere near the level that Dennis has at 6.03 pm, where he illustrates the sort of personally targeted nastiness Hague has justifiably criticised.

    And Fletch demonstrates (again) some of the attempts at extreme religious scare tactics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Quite right, Fletch.
    And Williamson thought he was being clever because he managed to quote the Bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    And Fletch dives into trying the old hell scares, but something doesn’t add up – if the temperature of hell doesn’t matter because the body is discarded at death then how can hell cause eternal torment – unless of course the Fletch’s are allowed to soulfully preach fire and brimstone interminably.

    It seems to me to be extreme blackmail claiming that a belief in Fletch’s God means you must be scared by all his claptrap.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Actually when you look closely at the Williamson speech there was nothing especially insightful or humourous abot it. Why the fuss?

    And by the way, DPF – reference to “Hutch and Auchie” makes you sound like a league commentator desparate to imply he has a close empathy with the players LOL.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. MrTips (97 comments) says:

    Green MP Kevin Hague, who helped Labour’s Louisa Wall with the bill, …..

    I still want to know why Hague was allowed to be on the GAC hearing submissions.
    In business and the real world that would be CONFLICT OF INTEREST and not tolerated.
    It would even null and void a contract……

    Hague has shown himself to be completely unethical and unemployable.
    Yet 76 other politicians seemed to think this OK.

    We’re screwed. Thanks Key and co.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Jesus, the damn thing has PASSED and still we hear about it! Daily!

    What does it take to make marriage firkin equality yesterday’s news? Surely we deserve a rest DPF, at least until the first “glamour couples” start getting “married” in a few months’ time?

    God, talk about Chinese whispers…how did yet another homage to marriage equality manage to morhp into a reference to euthanasia?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    I’m not sure that there’s much our host can do about it David G……there’s a hardcore of religious wingnuts commenting here who couldn’t order a cheese & onion toasted sandwich without bitching about gay marriage. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Nasska: Well I have heard more than enough about it myself Nasska, as I make clear, but euthanasia? From gay marriage?

    So in a sterling effort to put us all on the right path again (geddit?) you heard it first here: within 10 years, if not five, the calls for extending “marriage equality” to polygamous groupings will begin….once you depart from one man/one woman, the rest is inevitable, as this was when Helen supported civil unions eight years ago….and told everyone that it would NEVER be extended to marriage….if any U tube or whatever clips exist, go and see for yourself…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    You’re probably right David. The social engineers will never be satisfied long term whatever the outcome.

    In the meantime all we can hope for is a few years respite from the crap…..from both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Pete George (17,241) Says: April 22nd, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    graham, I have not seen Kevin Hague stoop anywhere near the level that Dennis has at 6.03 pm, where he illustrates the sort of personally targeted nastiness Hague has justifiably criticised.

    Williamson does not have any children (that he talks about). The three children who live(d) with him are adopted. He’s failed to reproduce, pass on his genes; biologically a failure. The few people I have spoken to who go along with this redefinition are divorced. The failed got their way.

    There is a difference between stating unpleasant facts and gratuitous nasty insults. State that which is factually incorrect.

    Williamson deserves all he gets; stupid, arrogant blowhard.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    God, talk about Chinese whispers…how did yet another homage to marriage equality manage to morhp into a reference to euthanasia?

    Because it is all part of the progressive agenda of the last 100+ years to decouple and tear down the West from its historical and cultural underpinnings in order to deliver a brave new world from the rubble. It’s no conspiracy, just read what the activists are saying. I suggest you start with Antonio Gramsci or the Fabian Society. Google the Fabian Window, what of significance do you see?

    BTW, Mr Garrett I agree with your slippery slope into polyandry portent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. mandk (993 comments) says:

    How did we get from marriage equality to euthanasia?
    Here’s the answer straight from the horse’s mouth:

    mandk (125) Says:
    April 20th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Hey David
    Homosexual marriage was last week’s liberal cause.
    I thought you had moved on to making killing pre-born babies easier.
    [DPF: Nope euthanasia next. Killing babies is too easy. Killing old people much more challenging to get thorugh]
    Vote: 7 1

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    The social engineers will never be satisfied long term whatever the outcome.

    I fear you are right, but fortunately the social engineers were defeated on this occasion.

    Gay marriage is “a fine libertarian viewpoint”, as confirmed by Mike Munger, a well-known Libertarian.

    http://mungowitzend.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/speech-in-nz-parliament-on-gay-marriage.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    wat dabney

    I just want to see Government out of the business of dictating moral standards & enforcing social norms. Government should exist to enact criminal law as well as oversee matters of defence, dealings with other sovereign nations & not much else. If they have any purpose in this matter it is only to keep a record of who’s up who & who should pay.

    The Godnutters can create their own standards as they wish. MPs can organise their morals individually or collectively. Neither group should be able to force their half baked crap onto the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    John Key on television tonight said a condition of Maurice William-sung appearing on the Degenerate TV show was that William-sung would have to pay any fee received to charity, and that those appearing had to receive a fee because of union rules in America.

    What Key didn’t say was whether the Government would pay to get pay to get William-sung on the show.

    When Key appeared on the Letterman show in America two-to-three years ago, it cost NZ taxpayers $10,000 to get him on the show. Key then donated to charity the $250 he received for appearing on the show.

    When I looked at the William-sung clip on Youtube a few minutes ago there were several versions. The major one, apparently posted by the Hooerald had just over a million visits. It’s interesting that like-dislike voting had been disabled, so you don’t get an idea of how many agreed with William-sung.

    There was one funny comment though:

    …He’s got a degree in physics yet still chooses to be a politician…you will burn in the fires of hell for eternity for that decision..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George at 7:00 pm – Please reread what I posted. I was not comparing Kevin Hague to anybody on Kiwiblog, I was drawing a comparison between him and his political peers.

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