Kiwiblog

Morgan Godfery blogs:

 Hone Harawira is known for a lot of things, but not many people realise he is a social and moral conservative. He is against, for example, drug liberalisation and gay marriage and in an interview with Bryce Edwards Hone claimed to be against a society of “choice”. This, I think, reveals an authoritarian attitude not uncommon in Maori males of Hone’s generation. …

Anywho, as I said Hone Harawira is opposed to gay marriage, or marriage equality as it’s positively framed. This position has been opposed universally within the Mana Party. Leading members have asked Hone to justify his position, but he is yet to face the membership with a justification. This is unacceptable from the party leader and he will be rightly savaged for it. 

This issue will be interesting to see play out.

Hone is a Maori nationalist politician who is left economically. Most of his party though are hard core leftists, who detest social conservatism. This naturally creates tensions.

The other friction is that Hone is not a “Explain yourself” type politician. he is more in the Jim Anderton mode of my way or the highway. I still believe his departure from the Maori Party was more about ambition – he could not secure the leadership. So he may be reluctant to moderate his views, no matter how much his supporters want him to.

Reuters reports:

Equivocal no longer, US President Barack Obama has declared his support for gay marriage in a historic announcement that instantly elevated a polarising social issue to a more prominent role in the 2012 race for the White House.

On a personal level, its good to see Obama to have the guts to say what I suspect has been his actual position for a long time. It is a position I agree with (except I would probably not have the state involved in marriage at all, and just have the state register partnerships and allow people to call it a marriage if they want to, under whatever religion they may follow).

What is interesting is the potential political impact of Obama’s announcement. The US is split around 50/50 on this issue, but those against are vehemently against and will be highly motivated to turn out and vote if the election is pitched as a referendum on the gay marriage issue.

Of course it is in fact a decision for states, not the Federal Government, but Presidents appoint judges who rle on the constitutionality of various laws for and against gay marriage.

But Obama has the future on his side. He noted:

Obama touched on that in the interview.

He said he sometimes talks with college Republicans on his visits to campuses, and while they oppose his policies on the economy and foreign policy, “when it comes to same sex equality, or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are more comfortable with it.”

There is a huge difference of views on issues such as gay marriage and gay adoption by age. Under 30s tend to be  massively in favour and over 60s massively opposed. That indicates that with the passage of time, there will be a clear majority in favour. But that may not be the case in 2012.

So a bold risk for Obama to announce this in election year, and I await with interest to see how it impacts the US elections.

I was an active supporter of the NZ civil unions legislation, and am also a supporter of gay marriage. I think it is also inevitable within a generation or less.

AP report at Stuff:

A US federal appeals court has declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the US Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the US Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

I think this is a bad decision. While I disagree with their decision, the people of California voted in a referendum to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment.

The way to legalise gay marriage should be winning a future vote on the issue, not having three Judges over-turn a referendum.

The argument of course is that gay marriage is a constitutional right, under the Bill of Rights. I don’t agree. I think it is something that should be legal, and should be allowed. But I do not think it is a constitutional right, just as I don’t think abortion is either.

Again – don’t get me wrong. I support laws which make abortion safe and legal. But these should be determined by legislatures or voters – not a handful of judges.

One reason for this is that you have massive ongoing resentment, when judges determine things, rather than the people. Take for example giving women the vote. This was done by way of constitutional amendment. The result is that no one alive in the US seriously disputes that women shouldn’t have the vote.

But if the Supreme Court had not waited for the law to be changed, and had by themselves declared women have a right to vote (and of course they do), that decision would probably be as contentious today, as Roe v Wade is.

I do support the courts being able to strike down laws which conflict with basic human rights. But I think this is a power that should be used rarely and when there is almost no other option. Otherwise one should try and achieve change through the democratic process of electing Parliaments and referenda.

We’ve shown in NZ you can do it that way.  Several states in the US have allowed gay marriage through the democratic process. That is how the issue should be resolved in California, not by the courts.

As it happens, the issue will now head to the Supreme Court of the US. I pick a reversal by at least 6-3.

The Dom Post has run an op ed from Bob McCoskrie responding to Deborah Russell. An extract:

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage  the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

I never knew Bob had such a vivid imagination. Think of the great pro-marriage example it would set if the All Blacks all married each other – that would be real team bonding – secret handshakes and all.

Rainbow Wellington asked all the parties their views on various issues. For some reason they asked not just about gay issues but also weird stuff like prisoners having the vote. Anyway I thought the responses from the parties on gay adoption and marriage (both of which I support) was interesting.

Gay Adoption

ACT – ACT supports ending the discrimination same sex couples face when trying to adopt a child. The Adoption Act 1955 is out-dated and the criteria for adoption should focus on how fit a person or people are to be parents, not their sexual orientation.

A very clear statement that states they support ending discrimination and that sexual orientation should not be a criteria, rather how fit people will be as parents.

Labour – Labour believes that the current adoption laws are antiquated and discriminatory, which need to be modernised and updated. The current Act fails to take into account the number of legislative changes introduced over the past decade areas such as assisted reproduction technology, surrogacy and the legal status of de facto relationships and civil unions. A Labour-led government will enact legislation that will require the Law Commission to review and update adoption law to better reflect modern New Zealand. Labour has already drafted and tabled a Bill to give effect to this.

What I find interesting is that Labour’s answer doesn’t in fact answer the question. They say the Act is discriminatory but don’t specifically say they will allow same sex adoptions. They just say it should be modernised and adopted.

Maori Party – If there is a need for children to be cared for we believe strongly that whānau, regardless of sexual orientation, must be encouraged to care for these children within the family.

Again very clear. The Greens to no surprise are also explicit.

Greens – The Green Party’s policy on this is that parenting skills are distinct from sexual orientation or gender identity. We support equal criteria for both ‘rainbow’ and heterosexual couples in their assessment for suitability and eligibility for parenting. Spokesperson Kevin Hague has formed and convenes a cross party group to reform adoption law.

National won’t commit either way:

We are aware of issue with the Adoption Act. It’s an old piece of legislation and has been identified as an area for potential review. We are currently running a very full justice agenda focused on making New Zealand safer, putting more police on our streets, and reducing crime. In the context of the current economic environment reform of adoption laws is not a priority for the Government.

Gay Marriage

Labour – Our initial focus has been to ensure that existing rights under marriage should also extend to civil unions, and we will complete that work. But Labour believes in formal equality before the law for people in any relationship status, including marriage.

Again, no specific commitment at all. Both times they avoid the question.

Greens – The Green Party strongly supports full equality and believes that this will eventually be achieved either through the amendment of the Marriage Act to include us, or through the repeal of the Marriage Act (which would leave civil unions as the method by which the state formally recognises relationships, and marriage as a purely religious institution).

I actually quite like the Green position of having the state registering relationships only, and leaving marriages to the different religions who could adopt their own rules.

ACT – To be clear now, I should have voted in favour of the Bill in all its stages. I admit I don’t understand why, having legalised civil unions between two people, irrespective of their gender, there is still pressure to provide for same sex ‘marriage’. In the English language I have always understood ‘marriage’ to be between a man and a woman.

Interesting to see Don say he should have voted for civil unions. I was disappointed when he didn’t vote for them at the final reading.

National – In the context of the current economic environment and our strong focus on providing stability, reducing debt, and returning to surplus by 2014 the government currently has no plans to amend the Marriage Act.

Of course on an issue such as this, most MPs will have a conscience vote regardless of party.

A reader has pointed out this quote from UK PM David Cameron:

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Would be great to hear that from an MP here.

The Herald reports:

An American who travelled to New Zealand to spread the word of God – and whom Brian Tamaki called his “spiritual father” – has been accused of sexually assaulting young men.

Bishop Eddie Long is a well-known preacher in Atlanta who built one of America’s most widely known black megachurches, the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church.

The married father of four, who has strongly campaigned against same-sex marriage, is having to defend himself after he was accused of using jewellery, cars and money to lure three teenagers into sexual relationships.

You sometimes have to wonder – are there any campaigners against same sex marriage who aren’t gay?

The WSJ reports:

This just in: San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker has shot down California’s Proposition 8, the initiative passed by voters in 2008 that banned same-sex marriage.

Judge Walker said Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. Click here for the opinion.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Walker’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If I lived in California I would have voted against Proposition 8. I have no problems with same sex marriage.

But I do not like judges deciding that there is a constitutional right for same sex marriage, and over-riding the will of the people.

I do not think the intent of the the drafters of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights could possibly have been to force same-sex marriage onto a state, despite its rejection by popular decision.

Eventually the US Supreme Court will decide the case on the legal issues. I am more interested in the political.

I think having Judges “decide” something is a right is generally counter-productive. Roe v Wade is a fine example. Why so many hate that decision, is because a group of Judges decided abortion policy for the entire United States. If Roe v Wade had never been decided that way, I beleive most states would not have reasonable abortion laws, without anywhere near the controversy that surrounds them.

Justice Scalia has made the point that there is almost no controversy over women having got the vote, because it was done the proper way – through elected representatives changing the law. If the US Supreme Court had just one day declared women have the vote, then the decision would have far less “ownership” from the public.

I’m not against an entrenched bill of rights, where laws that conflict with it can be struck down. I am against what is generally called judicial activism where issues that should be decided through the political process, are decided overwhelmingly by the judicial process.

Interestingly the Judge who made the ruling is gay, but was a Reagan appointee and is regarded as conservative or tending libertarian.