Must read

What's hot

Truth Commentary: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
althecat
19

Smart thinking

by Whaleoil on June 16, 2012

ᔥ NZ Herald

Kevin Hague is a smart thinker…instead of hoping that Louisa Wall’s bill on same sex marriage gets pulled from the ballot he has still put his and Nikki Kaye’s bill in effectively doubling their chances.

Proponents of gay marriage are doubling their chances to get a Bill before parliament.

Labour MP Louisa Wall and Green MP Kevin Hague have both put their respective gay marriage Bills into Parliament’s members’ Bill Ballot.

It effectively doubles the chances of the legislation being drawn and ending up on Parliament’s agenda.

Mr Hague says they’ll both work to support the other if their peer’s Bill ends up being selected.

Tagged: • • •

Related posts

  • Woody

    As far as I am aware this actually can’t occur. The Clerk will eliminate one (by mini-ballot) prior to each main ballot. See Standing Order 277 (2).

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      If the wording is sufficiently different, and I believe they are, then they will remain, even though the end goal remains the same.

      • Jman

        Yes, another example of how the gay lobby manipulates things to further their agenda.

        • Guest

          Interesting how those who fear equality for homosexuals make up lies.

        • Andrei

          Interesting how those who fear equality for homosexuals make up lies.

          Interesting how those who want to change the meaning of venerable institutions change the meaning of words to try and make their argument by absurdity.

          What does “equality” actually mean in this context?

          • Guest

            It means that I get the same right to marry as you do. Rather simple to understand I would have thought.

  • Apolonia

    Three MPs, two bills, if they could count they would put in three bills.
    Not that they should be encouraged, marriage is between a man and a woman. If they want a union between the same gender then invent another word, like “civil union”

  • motorizer

    i dont know how i feel about this cross politics. effectively two people have created double the work load behind the scenes to achieve the same inevitable conclusion?

  • Guest

    Doubling the chances of a law change, but not the chance that Key will vote yay in the final vote.

  • razorlips81

    There are much more vital issues to be dealt with. There is a poll running on Yahoo, when I looked last it was not infavour of gay marriage – rather pleasing! Last Sunday I read an article on new forms of STI (No longer STD more PCBS) being drug resistant, these “infections” are prevelent in the Gay and Bi-sexual communities. Male gays could be walking around with dicks like a bloody flute – haha! This tells me that Gays are not going to have it all their own way and I will not accept “gay marriage”

    • Anon

      Andrei or which NZ CON blogger are you that keeps on talking about that Yahoo poll?!? Bollocks!

  • Steve Robinson

    I do not have a problem with same sex couples getting
    married. However, if this means that the state will force Christian Churches to
    marry homosexuals, even if they do not approve, then I have a big problem.
    Marriage in the Christian context is clearly between a man and a woman. They
    invented that particular type of marriage and their bible is very clear on
    homosexuality. It would be an affront to their cherished beliefs, and my
    libertarian ones, to force them to marry gays. I know that some homosexuals
    agree with this position and wish to disassociate from that type of marriage.

    I say this as a liberal atheist. I think the biblical view
    on homosexuals is ignorant. But what I think is not the issue.

    If the couple marry in a Church that approves of same sex
    marriage, then no problem. If they marry with a celebrant, then no problem. If
    the armed state forces Destiny Church (for example) to marry a couple of
    blokes, then I have a problem.

    • Gazzaw

      Exactly my thoughts Steve. Same sex marriage is not a problem for me personally and having agnostic views the religious aspect does not represent a concern to me. However, I do have a major problem with the state legally forcing the issue on to religious bodies regardless of what persuasion they are – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. If Christian gays are determined on the legislation that’s fine but they must establish their own particular brand of Christianity if the Catholics, Anglicans etc are not prepared to perform gay marriages. If you are a Catholic gay then the choice is yours – stay Catholic & be happy to accept a civil union or place your ‘gayness’ above your religion and marry in your own church.

      Regardless of my agnostic views I will support religious bodies to the hilt to retain their total independence from that state.

      • Alex

        It works both ways though. Just as the State should not interefere with religious belief, so the Churches should not interfere with State policy.

        No one is suggesting that the religious bodies should be forced to marry same sex couples. The churches already have exemptions under the anti-discrimination legislation.

        At the end of the day, this debate is tiresome. But that is not a reason to decline to allow same sex marriages.

        Same sex couples have made the reasonable argument that the State should treat their relationships as equal to those of different sex couples, and that religious notions should not be an impediment to this.

        The anti same sex marriage brigade have not put up any reasonable arguments. They are based on hysteria (ie “western civilisation will collapse), or premised on a belief system most NZ’ders do not subscribe to (ie, religious fundamentalism and homophobia). Not one of them has shown how their rights will be tangibly affected because, for example, two women say they’re married and call each other their wives. It seems they behave like the leftists in thinking that the State needs to use its coercive powers to protect them from having their feelings offended.

        Changing the law will require a few technical amendments, which have largely been worked out inthe Hague and Kay Bill. It will not affect anyone but those same sex couples who wish to marry. So lets just enact the Bill, tell the moral conservatives to mind their own business, and move on.

        As George Clooney rightly remarked, when same sex marraiges are allowed, people are going to wonder what the fuss was all about.

    • Meg

      Ah this red hearing. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry couples. They do it all the time. So why would this right the churches have disappear if gays gain full marital equality?

  • norm

    Surely New Zealand has more important issues to deal with?
    What a waste of taxpayers’ money. It’s appalling that the socialist political elite
    would force the meaningless minority rainbow agenda down the throats of a not
    interested majority of kiwis.

    • Alex

      It works both ways. If polls are to be believed, most NZ’ders are OK with same sex marriage. If that is so, then it’s only a matter of time. Being gay myself, I don’t see why same sex couples shouldn’t be able to marry. That said, I don’t have any personal desire to “marry”, and don’t think the inability to do so means I’m a second class citizen (although I believe strongly that same sex couples with children should have their parental status fully recognised; currently only one parent is recognised while the other is treated as a legal stranger)). So I’m quite happy for this to remain a private members’ bill matter and not a government initiative. But let’s get real, the world will not end if same sex couples can marry, and it will not take much to enact same sex marriages apart from some relatively minor amendments to legislation referring to married couples.

    • Meg

      Equality is always meaningless to those who have all the power.

  • Gulag1917

    Wonder what Proverbs says about that?

%d bloggers like this: