Kiwiblog

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.

Deborah Russell writes in Stuff:

The state has no business in the marriage game. It does have a legitimate interest in noting who is in a committed relationship. As a society, we want to be able to tell which people happen to be sharing accommodation as mere flatmates, and which have amalgamated their interests for the foreseeable future. …

It is unfair the state gives a certain status (marriage) to some households but not others. Either the recognition ought to apply to all, or none. Anything else represents the state picking and choosing among citizens, saying some are more worthy than others. That ought to be anathema in an egalitarian society.

Churches should not be allowed to perform state marriage ceremonies. They are welcome to perform their own ceremonies, but there is no reason for the state to endorse them. If the Head Prefect of the Assembly of Elf Worshippers wants to conduct wedding ceremonies on midsummer night’s eve, then she should go ahead. It just oughtn’t to count for the purposes of the state.

People who want to register their relationship with the state as well as in the eyes of their church or coven or humanist society should do that. They should make a trip to the Registry Office to record their relationship for the purposes of the state, and then independently do whatever they like that constitutes solemnising a marriage in their own religion.

As for marriage for lesbian and gay and other non-traditional couples, or trios, or whatever, what is available for one New Zealander must be available for another. If the Government wants to stay in the marriage game, then it should make its version of marriage available to everyone – straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, two or three or more, whatever. That’s only fair.

I broadly agree with Deborah that the state should merely register relationships, and it should be up to individual couples if they wish to have that relationship called a marriage by the particular religion they follow.

NRT blogs:

this month ResearchNZ asked about it in their regular monthly poll of social attitudes. The question was

“In your view, should same sex couples also be allowed to marry?”According to the results [offline, but will be up here later], 60% of respondents were in favour and 34% opposed

If that is correctly reported, then that is a great result.

Support was higher amongst women (66%) than men (51%), and significantly higher amongst young people, with 79% of those in the 18 – 34 age bracket in support (vs “only” 61% of 35 – 54 years olds, and 44% among older people).

With 80% support amongst under 35s, I’d say it is inevitable and just a matter of time.

Some people thought the world would end with civil unions. It didn’t. All that happened is same sex couples who wanted to pledge their love for each other were able to do so in a way which has legal recognition.

Civil unions are marriage in substance, but not in name. I don’t think it is a burning issue, but I do think that Parliament should listen to the people, and amend the Marriage Act to allow same sex marriages.

I never thought I would come across smart political analysis from Clay Aiken, and in all places – on the Perez Hilton blog. But read this:

I will say that I am QUITE disappointed that Prop 8 passed in the first place. I could argue all day the myriad of reasons that I believe the US Constitution provides for equal rights for all people. And, as much as it is their right to have a differing opinion, I think that some of the arguments coming from the anti-gay side are stupid, hypocritical, and even contradict themselves.

That said, I can’t say that I am too upset by the CA Supreme Court’s ruling. While it is disappointing that same sex couples in CA will have to wait longer to have equal rights, at the same time I worry that a different ruling from the court would have caused far more trouble than good.

Proposition 8 was the recent vote to amend the California State Constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court had earlier ruled that same sex couples could marry, but after voters changed the state constution, they (correctly in my opinion) ruled that such marriages were no longer allowed.

The bottom line is… no matter how much I hate it…. Prop 8 passed with the majority of the public vote. I don’t agree with them. I don’t think it is right, but it happened. I don’t think I would be comfortable allowing the courts the power to override the will of the people.

And this a key principle – that Judges should not make laws, and over-ride the will of the people.

Yes, I know the argument can be made that had the courts not struck down segregation in the south we may still have Jim Crow laws in place. However, (A) segregation was instituted by the states based on public opinion and not necessarily by an official vote and (B) the US Supreme Court struck down the practice of segregation. It didn’t overturn a specific vote.

And Aiken demonstrates the difference between over-turning other laws, and a law put in place by popular vote to amend a state constution.

I strongly believe that the next time that Californians go to the ballot box to vote on legalizing same sex marriage, the tides will turn. I truly believe that the majority of CA voters will support the equal rights of all people next time they are given the chance. While the CA Supreme Court may now be composed of justices who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal (remember they are the ones who made it legal in the first place), what happens when the public votes for same-sex marriage to be legalized, yet the CA Supreme Court is made up of justices who feel it should be illegal? Will they then have the power to overturn the vote? Its not a precedent I want set.

Bravo.

As much as I disagree with Prop 8, I don’t want to give the courts the power to ignore the will of the people. Because I expect that one day, even in North Carolina, the majority of voters will allow me the right to get married, and when that happens, I don’t want nine justices being able to change the outcome.

Aiken may not realise this, but he is effectively quoting Justice Scalia. Scalia points to how much better it was women got the vote by way of constitutional amendment, rather than have the Supreme Court declare they are now voters.

Thi even ties into Roe v Wade. One can be pro-choice but also anti Roe v Wade. One of the reasons abortion is such a heated issue in the US, is because the public and the legislatures had the decision taken away from them by the Supreme Court.