Open Mic: Addressing the misinformation campaign of Family First, by Kevin Hague

Capture

Most MP inboxes are again starting to fill up with lobbying emails and letters again on the Marriage Equality Bill. I wouldn’t call it a flood, but there’s a steady stream.

Most of those opposed have introduced a curious new note: they are terrified or outraged that the words “husband” and “wife” are going to be outlawed, or at least expunged from the NZ Statute book. They think this because Family First has done its usual scare-mongering and exaggeration trick, making this their main response to the Select Committee report released this week.

This fear that the language in NZ law was going to be changed was something that appeared in a very small number of submissions, but Family First is making a big deal of it now because the Select Committee has made it absolutely clear that churches won’t be required to do or say anything different, making religious freedom a non-issue.

I have to say I’m tempted to respond by asking which legal reference to “husband” and “wife” is their favourite, as I’m quite certain that my correspondents have only the vaguest notion of what’s actually in the law, but that might be unhelpful. 

kevinhague

Kevin Hague MP

Of course Louisa’s Bill will affect some other laws if it is passed. In fact in a large majority of cases where NZ law needs to refer to the partners in a marriage it uses the terms “spouse” and “spouses” already. I haven’t noticed people marching in the streets to change this! These laws won’t require any change.

In the minority of cases where “husband” and “wife” are used, the Select Committee’s instruction has been that if it is possible to retain them, and for the law to still make sense once same-sex couples can marry, then that is what should happen. The words have been retained in about three quarters of the places they currently appear.

In the remaining quarter of cases a change is needed to make the law make sense. For example where the law says “the husband and wife” must do a particular thing the wording cannot be intelligibly applied to same-sex married couples. In these cases we have replaced with “both spouses” rather than invent some extraordinarily cumbersome alternative.

I think most people would conclude that Family First is clutching at straws. But shame on them for doing so in a way that misleads and panics others.

Authorized by Kevin Hague, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

Open Mic is where you get to have a say to the Whaleoil audience.  Anyone can submit an Open Mic article by emailing [email protected]  Keep your articles to 300-700 words, and please write for this audience  Submitted articles will be posted anonymously unless you ask us clearly to do otherwise (that way no mistakes get made). 

  • Pete George

    Family First have raised an important issue. There is no mention in the new legislation of being to call your legal cohabitator “snooky pie”. I think it’s disgraceful that that will be banned.

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

      Family first in continuing their “moral” crusade have lied. Their high moral ground has now been swamped by their lies.

      • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

        Agreed Cam. As I have just mentioned below, they have wasted resources into a fruitless campaign that has done nothing but drive further wedge into The Faith and causing larger stigmas we dont need.

        Those resources would be better used helping kids in South Auckland out of cycles of violence and poverty. Or maybe helping some prisoners get back on the straight and narrow

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

          I have spoken directly with Bob, months ago, about the perception that his organisation are bigoted and that they should change their name to “Our Kind of Families First”…I pointed out to him that gay people have mothers and fathers, and brothers and sisters….don;t they count in your organisation….and that gay people already have children and families…don’t they count either…and finally I pointed out to him that less than 1000m from his swanky office block in Manukau there are plenty of heterosexual families killing their kids, bashing them and neglecting them and don;t they count either….he just seems intent on making Family First a small rather isolated organisation relevant to about 15% of the population instead of embracing ALL families.

          • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

            Which is the irony and (excuse the language) real fucking shame on Family First.

            Maybe a “rival” Family First group should be established in direct competition to Bob but rather than the 15% FF that Bob “guns for” it should be a Family First that as you said “embracing ALL families”

            Families are not a single homogeneous form and never have been since dot. They have been unique and very dynamic and Bobs one shoe fits all approach will simply not work because of the Dynamic.

            So I wonder if anyone would set up a rival to FF here that was more embracing…

            On a totally different note I see your Pinko mate over at Kiwiblog was touting or repeating an idea for an amendment Bill to strip Churches of their current exemption statuses they have with the State. Basically they should either try to go for charity status (there are those where this would apply) or just be lugged with commercial corporations and treated as such (I am thinking of the mega churches here)

  • Tony V

    I agree. I’ve been following the marriage equality debate for some time now and absolutely agree that two people who love each other and wish to spend their lives together should have the absolute right to do so.
    I think the arguement against the Marriage Equality Bill is based upon stereotypes, ignorance and pig headed simple-mindedness.
    In trying to whip up a frenzy around the wording of certain acts, Family First are showing just how desperate they are becoming.
    Great balanced, common sense approach Kevin.

    • Apolonia

      Two people who love each other can already spend their lives together. They can even have that formalised by a state recognized civil-union, or just live in a de-facto relationship.
      There is no need to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, or delete the terms husband and wife from any piece of legislation.

      • Tony V

        Agreed that they can. But by defining their union as something else, aren’t we continuing to exclude them from being accepted within the bounds of our ‘normal’ society. I say normal with due regard to our society as being anything but normal.

        • Apolonia

          There union is some thing else. It is a relationship between two people of the same gender.

          • Tony V

            So? How will it harm me, my family or society in general, if they are recognised as being a married couple?

          • unsol

            And the down votes being indicative of ‘but it just will (stamps foot & storms off)’…

      • Gayguy

        Please tell me why a straight couple get the right to marry and a gay couple not? Oh and given that marriage has been redefined many many many times you cannot use the “no right to redefine marriage” line.

        Please begin.

        • LesleyNZ

          Never been redefined to the “same sex” – that is more than mere “redefining”. Gay marriage equality is changing the cornerstone or foundation of marriage. Parliament does not have the right to change the foundation of marriage.

          • Gayguy

            So allowing 2 consenting adults to marry is far more of a massive change than stopping multiple wives or shagging the help, as the Bible allows in the OT?

          • LesleyNZ

            Did the Bible allow it? It is mentioned in the Bible but happened because of a sinful heart and disobedience to God. What you say above was sinful – don’t try and bring up other sins to make the another sin right. They are all sins in the Bible.

          • Gayguy

            Yes, the Bible spoke favourably of it. As it did slavery. And stoning people. I love it when you hypercritical bible bashes who pick and chose the most violent and hate filled parts of the Bible, while ignoring anything that negatively impacts on YOUR life, get your knickers in a twist when your hypocrisy is pointed out to you.

          • unsol

            Actually GG polygamy was an accepted practice but not something that was ever condoned by God.

            But other things such as stoning women to death who voice an opinion in public were…..

            I always find it interesting that so many rules from the NT – which is meant to be the main guide for modern living as Jesus was the ‘last sacrifice’ – are conveniently ignored in favour of the modern world yet any mention of homosexuality is yelled from the rooftops….nevermind the context (rape not consensual relationships) of when those comments by Paul were made.

          • unsol

            The foundation of marriage was dictated by man so if man wants to redefine it post the Church then the State getting their claws into it then the State has no choice

    • LesleyNZ

      Think it is the other way round Tony. Kevin Hague is the one who is desperate and worried.

      • Gayguy

        Why? Marriage equality is set to pass around April. Why would he be worried?

        • LesleyNZ

          Is it?

          • Gayguy

            I would be amazingly surprised if it did not pass.

            If even that old homophobic prick Banks now votes for gay rights, then the anti marriage equality side are doomed. So best get used to it.

  • Dr Wang

    …and we should trust/believe anything Kevin Hague says?

    • Pete George

      I do. I think he’s one of the straightest MPs (trustworthiness-wise).

      • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

        In concur with that statement

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=706456651 Nigel Sherrie Fairweather-Hunt

        bah ha ha did you just imply that some mps can be trusted?

      • Chris

        And you’re one of the most unintelligible wannabe MPs (understandibility-wise). Wormtongue.

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      You actually read the Bill itself and if required seeked legal interpretation of wording and the clauses in the Bill as it currently stands?

      No?

      Might want to do so

      I did and what Kevin has said is pretty true especially if you read this:

      [Of course Louisa’s Bill will affect some other laws if it is passed. In fact in a large majority of cases where NZ law needs to refer to the partners in a marriage it uses the terms “spouse” and “spouses” already. I haven’t noticed people marching in the streets to change this! These laws won’t require any change.

      In the minority of cases where “husband” and “wife” are used, the Select Committee’s instruction has been that if it is possible to retain them, and for the law to still make sense once same-sex couples can marry, then that is what should happen. The words have been retained in about three quarters of the places they currently appear.

      In the remaining quarter of cases a change is needed to make the law make sense. For example where the law says “the husband and wife” must do a particular thing the wording cannot be intelligibly applied to same-sex married couples. In these cases we have replaced with “both spouses” rather than invent some extraordinarily cumbersome alternative]

      The term spouse is already used on most legal documents here and overseas already and as Kevin has said in cases can be interchanged with husband and wife if one prefers.

      But I am not going to get into a song and dance about the word spouse being used on a legal form. Spouse is used on my wife’s Dutch Passport, spouse was used on insurance papers just signed. However the “wife” was used when I was introducing Bekka to acquaintances of mine (and vice versa when Bekka introduces me to her acquaintances)

      Point? No biggy here Family First and stop clutching at straws. Husband and wife is still going to be with us forever more no matter what with this Bill.

      Move along please FF and go do something useful like lifting kids out of violence and material poverty in South Auckland and the likes….

    • Chris

      If Kevin Hague thinks the Labour party are bunch of hypocritical pricks you’d turn around and defend Labour against that claim because it was “Kevin Hague saying it”?

    • Gayguy

      He has more creditably on this issue than anyone speaking against it. Those who have spoken against marriage equality have used fear, lies and hate to prop up their position.

      I have yet to see one crediable, well thought out argument against marriage equality that does not call on one, if not all three of these methods.

      • unsol

        Opposing marriage equality & credible arguments are mutually exclusive. All I have seen is derogatory terms used to justify ‘it’s just icky & wrong/not natural damn it (stamps foot)’ or crazy claims from the religious zealots.

        What they also fail to see is that the issue on whether same sex attraction is OK was resolved 20 years ago under the last reforms.

        So Andrei et al are scared because there is nothing standing in the way of same sex couples getting married.

        Society & the law has already said it is OK to be in same sex relationships, to live together, to have children together (another thing which the anti conveniently overlook). So it is only natural that they should be able to get married as they have all the same rights bar the right to a marriage license & to not just adopt individually (which LGB can already do – not sure about T), but as a couple.

  • BR

    You see, this is where you are doing the left’s dirty work for them. You are promoting propaganda from the most deceitful party in parliament.

    Bill.

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      Go read the actual Bill then seek legal advice on it before spouting off.

      No propaganda here

      • BR

        Propaganda comes in many forms. It can be outright lies, truth taken out of context, half truths, exaggerations etc. Propaganda is deception by constant and widespread repetition. It took a propaganda campaign for homosexuality to be accepted as a healthy lifestyle choice. It is not a healthy lifestyle choice. It never has been and never will be. Homosexuals are damaged people. I know of two who were damaged by the kiddy fiddlers who fiddled them when they were children.

        Bill.

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

          Yes outright lies like Bob McCoskrie’s, exaggerations like those from Family First, deception by constant and widespread repetition, like that of those who support Family First, Colin Craig and Bob McCoskrie.

          Like your constant equating of pedophilia with homosexuality…when the evidence is overwhelming that pedophilia is almost uniquely a heterosexual practice…

          Lies? check exaggerations? check constant and widespread repetition? check

          So who is running propaganda? You are.

          • LesleyNZ

            Time will tell if what Family First say is an exaggeration. Nothing surprises me anymore – especially after the anti-smacking law came to be.

          • Gayguy

            So what do you think will happen once marriage equality passes mid year?

          • LesleyNZ

            Time will tell. It seems now that the liberal left and right elite have taken control of the government with this bill. I thought it was supposed to be a conscience vote.

          • Gayguy

            In other words you know full well that there will be zero repercussions because 2 loving people can marry.

          • Gazzaw

            ……and Barnett’s Prostitution Reform. What a roaring success that has been.

          • Agent BallSack

            Your claim that Paedophilia is almost exclusively heterosexual countermands your previous posts regarding kiddy fiddling priests.

          • unsol

            Pedophile priests are the minority in terms of stats but majority – it would seem – in terms of their profession. Seems finding a priest that is not gay or a pedo is harder than winning lotto…

          • BR

            No, it is YOU who are running the propaganda campaign. The promotion of homosexual marriage on this blog is disproportionately represented in comparison to the other topics that are aired here. I, and others are merely countering the typical propaganda that you have cut and pasted from the EXTREME LEFT GREEN PARTY.

            You can’t dismiss the down voters lightly either. They show that as a conservative blogger, you do not have the majority support of your readers on this issue. The left will be rubbing their hands with glee as they watch a conservative blogger campaign for them on one of their more significant talking points.

            It is not even clear how many homosexuals support homosexual “marriage”. I suspect that a significant number of them don’t give a shit. They will continue buggering each other regardless of what the law says. Homosexual MP Chris Findlayson voted against it. A propaganda campaign of this intensity is not being pushed merely by the 1 to 2 percent of homosexuals. It is the LEFT that are pushing it.

            The left are the most evil bastards in the world. They are committed to the destruction of the civil society, and they are succeeding in their goals. Every avoidable problem in the world has their fingerprints on it. Homosexual “marriage” and the subsequent adoption of children will create another opportunity for dysfunction where none previously existed. That is what the campaign is really all about. Placing children into the custody of sexual deviants, what ever form they may take.

            Bill.

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

            my blog, my choice..you aren’t countering anything, except making us laugh….running allt eh same false arguments run overseas…they didn’t work there and they won’t work here

          • BR

            OK, it’s your blog. That much is certainly not in dispute. You get to decide what evil should be promoted, even to the extent of aiding and abetting the left.

            Who’s “us”?

            Certainly not the majority of your readership.

            Bill.

        • Gayguy

          You are the damaged person here. Not homosexuals. And a liar.

    • Chris

      So if a left wing party changed all of its policies to something you agreed with then you’d still call what they do as “the left’s dirty work”? If the answer is yes then you’re a fuckwit and not worth engaging with.

      • BR

        Then they would not be a left wing party.

        If anyone is a fuckwit around here, it is you.

        Bill.

      • unsol

        Bit of an oxymoron Chris….left wing is despised primarily because they have leftist policies. If they dont have that then they are right wing!

  • Andrei

    So you are a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL now, Whaleoil.

    Anyone would believe that “two people who love one another” cannot live together in harmony for the rest of their lives without getting a license to do so from the GOVERNMENT before embarking on their life long journey together from all the nonsense being spouted.

    • Chris

      Anyone else except same-sex couples can marry. Are you saying we take that right away from everyone? Yeah, that’ll learn ‘em, eh? Fuckwit.

      • Andrei

        You are a brainwashed dolt – were I and some nubile young woman to apply for a marriage license we’d be turned down.

        Why?

        I don’t have a “right” to marry because I am already married.

        Nobody has a “right” to marriage, there are certain preconditions to eligibilty to enter into the holy estate

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

          I think you meant holey estate

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

            Do I have to put you in your own sin bin?

        • Mitch82

          Can you show me the patent or copyright application that gives the Catholic Church domain over “marriage”?

          • Andrei

            LOL – we didn’t get married in a Catholic Church and our marriage is recognized everywhere in the World, even in Saudi Arabia.

            Good luck to those same sex couples waving their newly minted New Zealand marriage certificate under the nose of Saudi officials in getting blessing to cohabit as spouse and spouse while working in the Kingdom

          • Mitch82

            You’re dodging the issue. Marriage has nothing to do with a ‘holy estate’. Stop acting as though Christendom owns and controls the rights to marriage, and can therefore dictate what it is, and isn’t.

          • Andrei

            What makes you think the GOVERNMENT has the right to redefine marriage?

            And if it gets away with this, which is bonkers because it is an attempt to eliminate gender, which exists whether we like it or not, what’s to stop it from any other mickey mouse redefinition of marriage or anything else that arises as a result of someone elses looney brainfart

          • Gayguy

            ANY government has the right. Because marriage is a civil matter not a religious one.

          • unsol

            Marriage has already been redefined many times….that is why it is no longer about the procurement of wealth, status & heirs; why women can work outside the home & why people can get divorced etc etc

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

            and also why women are no longer chattels, shit someone must have changed that, will we see Andrei campaign for a return to that “holy estate”..where women were chattels of their husband?

          • Mitch82

            The Government administers the law of the land, and marriage is in part a legal union. Hence, for the purposes of being a legally recognized union between two people, the Government must be involved.

          • Gayguy

            So because hate nations support your views, NZ should follow suit and deny loving adults a right you have?

        • Gayguy

          Shot yourself in the foot much?

          The “holy estate” allows for a man to marry many women.

        • unsol

          “You are a brainwashed dolt”

          Surely you must see the irony in someone with your religious views making such a comment…..didnt realise you were a comedian Andrei!

          • Mitch82

            Not as good as Lucia emphatically telling the world that gay marriage is “make believe”. :D

        • BR

          That could change. Nothing is off the table when it comes to leftist agenda.

          Bill.

  • cows4me

    If husband and wife are simply words so are marriage and civil union. Of course it matters or we wouldn’t be going though all this horseshit.

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

      What I have learned from observing the campaign to redefine marriage is what horrible people are on the pro side. They cannot tolerate dissent, and will call anyone who opposes their campaign haters or bigots at the drop of a hat.

      They will set up fake Select Committees stacked in favour of redefinition.

      They binned thousands of public submissions, making the whole process a duplicitous farce, and then have the absolute gall to accuse FF of dishonesty.

      They will attempt to intimidate those who speak against, as Kevin Hague did to Grace Carroll.

      Writing an anti redefinition opinion on this blog subjects you to the attacks of a horde of smug sneering bigots and cowards who mistakenly call themselves liberals but project personal characteristics which would make them ideal as concentration camp guards.

      I am glad I am on the anti side, not only because it is the right side, but also because it is the civil side.

      • unsol

        You say those on the pro side are “smug sneering hypocrites and cowards” then in the next breath declare your anti side as the right side. Some would call that smug if not audacious. It isnt the right side. It is just right for you.

        That is the beauty of democracy – the majority get to decide which is the right side. It is democracy that will determine whether marriage equality will happen so everyone has to accept the outcome regardless. This means you may find you were on the wrong side.

        Seems to me that a lot of the fight from the anti is coming from a place of fear – fear of the what you dont understand & scared that what you thought you knew about life, morality & God might be wrong. But it’s too late. The tide turned in favour a long time ago & the reality is that this issue has no impact on anyone accept for the individuals vying for the right to marriage.

        The objection & criticism only comes out when the religious start pushing their views – as if to say that they are the personification of God Himself, or people who dont understand or simply just find icky the idea of 2 people of the same sex being together, are derogatory, belittling & start demanding that everything follows their so-called moral code. Nevermind the irony.

        Anyone can object, disagree, hate, dislike as much as they like, but the fact of the matter is that the main plus for the pro side is that this issue is simply no one’s business – not the State’s & not the Church’s. It is their business and their business alone.

        • BR

          Would you approve of the state sanctioning of bestiality on the basis that it is no one else’s business?

          Bill.

          • unsol

            No because animals – like children, are not able to give consent.

            And while bestiality – like pedophilia, appears to have been very much ingrained in Biblical times (as soon as girls got their period they were forced to get married) times have changed whereby neither are accepted as normal, healthy or OK in modern western societies.

            So unless the masses – which would usually be males – decide they prefer sheep to women or other men I cant see this being an issue.

            Thus a moot point.

            Next….

          • BR

            OK, so you would object to it on the grounds of animal welfare. Have I got that right?

            Bill.

          • unsol

            I said no to your question because it is irrelevant: animals cannot & will not ever be able to give consent.

            Next….

          • Gayguy

            So when did animals begin giving consent to this that and the next thing?

            Did you ask your dinner last night if it consented to dying so you could eat it?

          • BR

            If it’s OK to kill it and eat it without it’s consent, why isn’t it OK to bugger it without it’s consent?

            Bill

          • Gayguy

            Some people do.

            And some people have sex with other people without their consent.

            Both are illegal.

          • BR

            Do you approve of the illegal status of people having sex with animals?

            Bill

          • unsol

            Who says it is OK to kill it & eat it without its consent?

            And let me rephrase your silly question:

            if it is OK to bring a child into this world without their consent then why isnt it OK to rape them?

            Your grotesque tangent is inferring a morality argument that is not only repugnant, but also irrelevant.

            When children & animals start to demand their right to get married then your comments may have some relevance.

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

            [shakes head]

        • cows4me

          “the majority get to decide”, what tosh unsol, since when has the majority ever had a say in this country. This issue should be voted on by the whole country unsol but it won’t be, want to know why. Because the politicians are gutless wonders and their view of what they think it should be is not held by the general public and the cowards know it.

          • Gayguy

            If this was voted on by the general public, I know people like you would still bitch moan lie and spread hate when it passed.

          • cows4me

            Why would I bitch and moan, if it is what the general population want I’m happy to live with it. It’s yourside that own the cowards gayguy.

          • Gayguy

            Really? So you are saying that the gay community are preventing John Key from putting it to the people?

            Goodness what a claim, any proof of this?

          • cows4me

            Why do I need to prove anything to you GG. This is a major societal issue that the whole population should have a chance to vote on. I would say fair enough to your comment if National had put forward a policy on gay marriage, they did not. Why do politicians believe they have a right to social engineer. We vote them in to run the mechanical aspects of government, not the moral ones, that should be up to the overall population.

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

            I see your point, but our political system allows for private members bills, and if they have enough support, they go through too. It’s part of the system.

          • Gayguy

            In a Representative Democracy such as ours the people we put in into the House get to make both mechanical and moral laws. We gave them the right to when we voted for them.

            I doubt you would be crying like this if the law was the recrimination homosexuality. But if you are sooo outraged, and sooo sure that most of the country are against this… by all means, gather the people and march on Wellington. Put your money where your mouth is.

          • starboard

            it wont happen gayfag..youre pushing shit uphill ( excuse the pun )

          • Gayguy

            If you are revering to the marriage equality bill, yes it will.

          • unsol

            Don’t worry, you can just vote for Colin Craig – I’m sure he will appreciate the insight you have to offer….

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

            Can we just keep the name calling out of it? If we were all in the same room having this discussion, I very much hope you wouldn’t call him that to his face. Thank you.

          • starboard

            who comes onto a blog with a name like gayguy?? Just asking for grief, His real names probably James..or Layton or Riely…

          • Gayguy

            Who comes on to a blog with a name like starboard? What are you a cardboard cutout of Sol?

          • unsol

            No he just refuses to acknowledge port side exists….not sure how he will stay on board if he has to suddenly change tact….

            (Boating terms GG)

          • Gayguy

            I think you are giving him a rather bit too much credit.

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

            It’s kind of provocative isn’t it? At least you know where he’s coming from. (boom boom tish)

          • Gayguy

            Like all males one would assume out of my…………… ;0)

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

            How equal can we be, eh? eh? ;)

          • unsol

            Down vote because it was lame….so lame I laughed out loud! :)

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

            Since I’m on a roll:

          • Gayguy

            LMAO!

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

            Since I’m on a roll. (and that’s it from me. night all)

          • unsol

            Seems the fumes of he cow shit are clouding your judgment cows…the baby boomers may not be in favour as a majority, but all other age groups are so you’re living in la la land if you think that a costly referendum will support your stance. You may as well claim that one would show women have no right to vote. The tide has turned…..abou 20 years AO.

            And surely you understand pols 101?

            It the majority (in terms of those willing to get off their ass & vote that decide who gets into govt; all polls indicate the masses are in favour of this Bill so for the Nats to go against it would be the same as them trying to scrap WFF – political suicide & we all know that more than anything they like to remain in govt.

            Not to mention that PMB are part & parcel of our system…

      • Rodger T

        Wa,wa having a cry are we Bedwetter ? Having a sook cos` you busybody types aren`t getting your own way on an issue that has no affect on your life.
        Maybe if you could keep your nose out of other peoples bedrooms ,you religious numpties could save yourselves a truckload of grief.

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

        Take a look in the mirror Baiter…that is if you can find one not cracked from all your lies

        • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

          Example a lie.

          Its easy and cowardly just to make allegations.

          • Mitch82

            Wow. Cries of bullying from you, of all people – the chief agent of “Attack! Attack! Attack!”.

            It’s been a long time since I’ve seen you contribute ANYTHING to the debate other than the same old attempts to vilify everyone who opposes you.

          • unsol

            I know, so hypocritical. And I bet WO has saved copies of his ‘best’ comments too….

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

          OI!!!

          Since RB and I had our boring chat a week or two ago, he’s been doing just fine.

          So I don’t care if you own the blog or are just one of its fine readers, please stick to the post topic and no personal attacks.

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

            meow

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Yossarian/100001649836514 Richard Yossarian

        If Redbaiter were Parakura Horomia he’d be decrying John Key for being disgustingly obese and be claiming to be on the side of dieters.

  • Tony V

    There is some real manipulation going on here, so many down votes to reasonable comments. What are people afraid of?

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

      Themselves mainly…they can’t debate or put their names to it so they down vote in the background. Cowardly

      • Tony V

        And that is what is wrong. If you agree, come out, no pun intended, and say you agree. If you don’t, again, just say it. At least you will earn the respect of others for actually taking a position and voicing it.

      • Mitch82

        Can the up/down voting be disabled, or is it hardwired into Disqus?

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

          It really doesn’t matter, does it?

          • Mitch82

            I just think it’d be nice to see people contribute more to a debate than a down-vote.

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

            Most comment sections have a huge proportion of lurkers. And when they vote, at least they are engaged, even if it is only for a little while.

            As long as we can keep the general tone around here to be on that is focused on the topic and not on the person, I think we will continue to see more and more people join in (as they have over the last month)

          • unsol

            I agree – and if they down vote then they have to log in which means they are more than a passing bystander.

        • Gayguy

          I like it. The more down votes I get the more I smile at the discomfort of the hate filled fuckers voting me down.

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

            It does put those of us that support your general stance (perhaps not the way you go about it) in a position where it is more difficult to show it.

          • Gayguy

            Personally I think the whole up/down vote is a joke. As I just said above, most on here do not vote someone up or down because of the argument. They vote according to who is posting.

            I have proven that a few times, by using a one off name, saying something, getting up voted, waited, come back in a few hours later as me, say the same thing and get downvoted. It is pure nonsense. I have stopped using the function altogether.

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

            I wasn’t very clear. I didn’t mean the voting system. I mean the way you engage with people. You don’t have to be Mr Nice Guy, but all you seem to be doing is getting people’s faces. It allows them to be negative to you for you being negative to them, not because you represent a gay lifestyle point of view. And you, in turn, could be interpreting all the ‘hate’ as gay hate, when some of it is simply because you’re antagonising.

          • Gayguy

            Look at the comments they are making before I even so much as put a toe in a gay themed thread.

            It ain’t me. These people are genuine A grade fucked in the head hate filled homophobic retards. I am just another gay they can target. I could come on here all peaches and cream, never say a bad word to them, but because of my position and sexuality, they would still do and say what they do now.

          • Jimmie

            Now now – keep your toys in the cot guygay………

          • Gayguy

            Just speaking the truth is all.

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

            Are you likely to take advantage of the new law when it passes?

          • Gayguy

            Yes. We already have a CU, but will marry when it is legal.

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

            At the risk of having others pile in, can you explain to me why it is important for you to be married. What difference does it make for you, or you two, that you feel a CU doesn’t provide? I am ready for the prospect that I can’t understand it, as I don’t know what it is like to live like a gay man, but I’m hoping you may be able to provide some insight?

          • Gayguy

            A CU is a separate creation with the main purpose being it is for homosexuals. A CU provides everything, except full equality. We are not second class people, who deserve the same rights as any straight person. We do not deserve a separate union designed to shut us up.

            Helen Clark was wrong. She had the numbers and we could have had full marriage equality, but she got it wrong. So now, we look to John Key to support this. Because if he votes for this, most of National will, and with it we get equality.

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

            *click* Thank you. I finally get it.

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

            It should be to Helen Clarks lasting shame that she never properly delivered marriage equality.

        • Lion_ess

          The up/down voting is a good way to agree or disagree with a view, without repeating a comment that’s already been posted. (Except for Gayguy, I down vote him because he says he likes it)

          • Gayguy

            The up/down voting is a joke.

            Most on here vote according to who they like, not the argument.

        • unsol

          4 downvotes….ironic!

          • Mitch82

            Haha! It’d be rather interesting to see a published list of the most prolific down-voters. Cam could take Jason Gunn’s place in a WO Special Edition of ‘The List’.

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

            Just as a bit of side-info, not even Cam has access to that. We have no idea who votes, or how they vote.

      • LesleyNZ

        Same can be said about those who vote up.

    • BR

      Could it be that most of the readers on here do not agree with homosexual “marriage”?

      Bill.

  • Steve R

    Having fags marry each other wont change my life one bit .nor will it change my Marraige . It will only devalue what me and my wife have if we let it .
    As for the use of partner , we all have the option of crossing it out and writing in what ever we want .
    If two fags feel strongly enough about each other and want to take on all the drama and hassle that is family and married life they should go for it
    Some of my best friends are fags ( this is a lie i just like using that fraise to make me seem less of a homofobe ) and if they want to come home each night and be hassled for leaving thier work boots in the middle of the door way and nagged for not taking thier dinner plate to the bench and not cleaning the tolet after they use it . Then not get a root because his hubby has a head ache , then I say have at it.

    • Tony V

      I wasn’t sure if you we’re just taking the mimi or not. But I don’t think you are. I’ll give you credit for the spelling as possibly being on a mobile device, rather than you actually not knowing how to spell.
      How does this devalue the relationship you have with your wife?
      What if one of your children was/is gay? Would you not want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?

      • Steve R

        Oh no don’t give me credit I genuanly can’t spell and totally rely on my phone to spell correct for me.
        Like I said it won’t devalue what me and my wife have
        He’s not gay or atleast better not be
        Truthfully if he was then that’s what he is I’m very sure that he would accept the civil union / Marraige issue as part of his chosen way of life , and not try and change that part of his world. I brought him up to focus on his contribution to society not on screaming out his minority views.
        Don’t you think that there’s enough minority groups out there screaming as loud as possible to make the rest of us change our views and lives.
        However like I said at the start of my first post this issue won’t effect me unless I choose to let it I don’t believe that the fabric of society will break down if this bill has past and practically everything writen so far I have done out of bordom and to get a bite

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

          Get a new phone, it isn’t working. Either that or you have the spellchecker set on level one ncea

          • Tony V

            Subtle….

          • Steve R

            What’s do you mean

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

            Woosh

  • Jimmie

    I don’t have a problem with FF promoting the traditional nuclear family of mum dad and kids as the ideal family option for society.

    This liberal pc crap that any style of family is as good as another is a load of bollocks.

    Sure people can choose to be a solo, or to have 3 boyfriends who bash and smash the kids, or be gay folks who adopt kids, or any other odd permutation, which a neo-hippy society can dream up.

    However the ideal family unit still remains a nuclear family – everything else is 2nd best.

    However due to the strange anti-conservative ethos which currently pervades the halls of power in NZ bringing up kids in a nuclear family is seen as an old school abberation – to be discouraged as much as possible.

    I gotta ask the question WO. If you think that families of all styles are as wonderful as each other why did you and SB decide to get married and have kids?

    Thus perpetuating (from a liberal point of view) the stereotype of a traditional nuclear family.

    I am being a little ridiculous however I can’t see anything wrong with FF promoting the ideal family grouping for bringing up honest stable kids who are productive members of society – not a bunch of scrotes who end up in the lockup for 20 years.

    I know I spent a number of years chasing these young ferrals around – and virtually none came from a traditional family background.

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

      In retrospect, and complete honesty, starry eyed idiocy of youth and the unerring belief that it was what everyone did. The scared piece of paper that everyone is fixated on was last seen the day I signed it.

      If I was 23 again I don’t think I would get married.

      • Greg

        Sad.

      • LesleyNZ

        You wouldn’t have beautiful spanishbride then. I think you would get married.

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

          Who says i wouldn’t have her still…the bit of paper isn’t what keeps us together that is for sure

          • LesleyNZ

            Have HER still! But would your darling still have you? Most girls I know see marriage as a commitment and a ring on the finger is important to them as it shows the love and commitment towards them from their beloved one – when the engagement is announced they are so happy. Doesn’t have to be a fancy ring either.

      • Lion_ess

        Was that a deliberate typo there on the “scared” piece of paper?

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

          Damn ipad, corrected now

      • unsol

        I don’t see why you cant be accepting of all versions of good families & still go down the traditional path yourself. I am & I did. It is about allowing people to work out the ideals that best work for them rather than imposing your version onto others.

        So I judge by outcomes. I havent seen any research that indicates children who have gay parents are any worse off.

        But I have seen plenty about those who are part of families where the parents are in de facto or obviously unstable & dysfunctional relationships.

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

          I can accept anyones choice, I was asked why I did what I did and unlike many here was honest about it…actually having a wide network of friends in all sorts of differing relationships helps you understand that what Family First actually stands for is but a small and hypocritical segment of society.

          I am very accepting of all versions of good families who raise and nurture and respect children and turn them into contributing members of society.

          I am intolerant of feral scum no matter their sexual preferences who are simply breeding more feral scum for us as taxpayers to “care” for.

          My Mum was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, and a member of Session. She told me that in her experience of visiting church members in her ministry that the ones with the most polite and well adjusted children that she observed were the gay couples. She also told me before she died to keep up the good fight…help make this happen.

          And I will.

          • unsol

            Fair enough but I was surprised that you said if you had your time again you wouldn’t choose marriage. I love it. Don’t understand the point of long term de facto at all.

        • LesleyNZ

          That is why the ideal family in which to bring up children is a stable marriage with a mother and a father – as God planned from the beginning.

          • Lion_ess

            Who did Cain & Abel marry again?

          • unsol

            You & your killers one liners…..talk about Queen of the jungle!!!

          • Gayguy

            What rubbish. A loving caring home is what a child needs.

            And let us not forget that Christ came from a broken mixed family home.

          • starboard

            yeah but Christ wasnt a sodomiser gayboy..dont forget that..

          • Gayguy

            I know who Christ was and what he preached. You and your kind are the opposite of what Christ would consider christian like.

          • unsol

            To sodomize is to engage in oral or anal sex or have sex with animals. I assume masturbation would be included.

            Which means most people – if they know how to enjoy sex as it has always been intended, are “sodomisers” even the most purest of standards….

          • starboard

            call bullshit on all that. You ” assume ” masturbation is sodomising?? Are you for real? Which stratosphere did you float in from ?
            Bestiality is having sex with animals. Let me guess.. you’re a school teacher.

          • unsol

            If oral is naughty/defined as sodomy then masturbation prob would be too given the fact that the word is derived from the Bible…the same Bible that promotes sexual purity & denounces adultery & fantasies.

            So can’t really see how anyone could say wanking is a pure form of sex unless of course your spouse is there participating also….

          • starboard

            you talk absolute shite.

          • unsol

            Prove it port side…..oh what’s that….silence? Or feeble attempts to insult?

          • starboard

            sure I’ll prove it. Read your last 2 replys to me..utter bollocks, from someone with an IQ of less than 50.

          • unsol

            Right. Says the egg who uses the alias starboard without actually knowing what it means……

            The IQ test uses 70 as the baseline for whether someone is diagnosed with mental retardation…..of course if your IQ was even close to mine you would know that too.

            It is all well & good to try & assert some intellectual superiority over others, but what intelligent arguments have you actually proffered?

            Let’s recap shall we: your comments are rarely nothing more than “youre such a fuckwit” (which, incidentally should read “you’re such a fuckwit”); this is indicative of someone who not only lacks an average intellect, but also someone who is unable to offer nothing of substance to back up their antiquated bigoted & derogatory comments therefore, illustrating someone devoid of any credibility whatsoever.

            Almost everyone who comments online tends to assume the role of the keyboard warrior at some point, but it seems that this is all you do.

            Apologies if this is too much for your intellectual capabilities to handle….

          • mick le prick

            NO he just setup up the biggest legal Pedofile network in the world….But that seems to be ok. lol

          • LesleyNZ

            Forgotten already – Just utter rubbish. Where did you hear that from? St Matthews in the City?

          • Gayguy

            Actually I do not care much for the preaching that comes from St Matthews. I attend traditional mass at my own church. As well as serve on the vestry.

          • mick le prick

            why any gay guy in their right mind would even go to church WHY?

          • LesleyNZ

            So you attend a Catholic Church? Is that what is taught in Catholic Churches – that Christ came from a broken mixed family home?

          • mick le prick

            Funny how you bible bashers would rather some kids lived in a dysfunctional up bringing with violence, and booze n drugs. But thats ok cos its a Mummy and a Daddy married lol

          • LesleyNZ

            Did I say that? Don’t think so. Bible bashers? Just because you don’t like what the Bible says you say I am a Bible basher?

          • unsol

            As God planned from the beginning….you mean when all main Bible heroes were resultant from polygamist relationships where the mums were young enough to be their child’s sister….but yes, suppose the family units were relatively stable….

      • Gazzaw

        A strange statement to make Cam. That surprises me.

    • unsol

      The ideal family unit depends on what your own ideals are.

      For me marriage is paramount whether straight or gay. I am a big believer in the fact that if one is happy to sign on the dotted line for a house with their spouse then they should be prepared & able to do the same for their relationship.

      I think stable relationships – straight or gay, are what’s missing in this country. Too many people throw in the towel just because things get tough.

      In terms of children – there is no research showing children who have gay marriages are any worse off.

      Further when it comes to children there are so many variables so if you are going to dictate your ideals then you have to also go further & dictate other things to avoid absent parents (whether through break-up, working long hours or going away a lot for work or recreation….cricket, rugby, golf etc in the weekends), dismissive parents, inattentive parents, very busy parents (particularly those who work full time), messed up parents (just your usual white middle class version of messed up…..divorce rate indicates that this is a fairly large proportion of adults in NZ) & abusive parents.

  • Greg

    Homo’s want it all, aids and all the other diseases is a by product. What a sick society we have become and what ever you believe dosen’t really matter as we will reap what we sow. An arse is for giving not receiving.

    • Gayguy

      Good lord you are a hate filled idiot.

      • LesleyNZ

        Gayguy – Is there another word in your dictionary that you can use instead of “hate”. You are sounding like a broken record player (if you are old enough to know what they are).

        • Gayguy

          No, because hate is what the opposition boils down to, That and lies.

          So no, I will keep using the word hate to describe people like Greg, as well as the word liar. If you have an issue with that, may I suggest not coming into these threads. Then you will not have to deal with it and you can keep your head firmly in the sand.

          • LesleyNZ

            Don’t get so worked up now.

          • Gayguy

            Yes, silly me. I should just let hate be hate and go hide in my closet with my knitting.

            Piss off.

      • Greg

        Truth that hurts eh? Its not Gayguy its Homomale

        • Gayguy

          You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up to you and introduced it self.

          The anti marriage equality haters have built their argument on pure lies. Simple as that.

          • Greg

            And what are the lies? The truth is what?

          • Gayguy

            That there is zero reason to deny 2 consenting people to marry who ever they love. No matter their gender. That is the truth.

            All objections are based on hate or fear, but not one ounce of fact.

          • Greg

            No the hate or fear is quite wrong, fact is the arse wasn’t made to bear children. You have to respect other peoples views that marriage is between a Man and Woman. The homo’s have the civil union and thats enough to shut them up but no they are like a nagging partner – I Want More.
            Lets get real here men lying with men just isn’t right, that’s the truth!

          • Gayguy

            Why? You and your kind do not respect the view that marriage is a civil matter, has been redefined many times, and that loving people should be allowed to marry who they want regardless of gender. So why should I respect a view born from hate and discrimination?

            And given that science has proven homosexuality is natural and occurs everywhere, and has since the dawn of time, the argument that it is not natural is plain stupid and ignorant.

          • Greg

            Science hasn’t proven nothing of the sort, its funny when homo’s the greens etc always go on the attack as you have no defence.
            Mate with all what you believe one day you will find out the truth, I have nothing against you but realise you are just blind and hope for your sake don’t don’t catch something nasty.

          • Gayguy

            Willful ignorance such as yours is just pathetic.

      • Gazzaw

        Greg’s just stating fact. He’s neither hate-filled nor an idiot. You may well get the legislation that you seek but it will be an empty victory as the majority outside the gay community will continue to view your marriage as a travesty.

  • LesleyNZ

    Why would you believe what Kevin Hague says – a member of the Green Taliban? He must be getting real worried to post on this blog about Family First. Seems that NZers are now waking up to the implications of this gay marriage bill and can’t believe that social engineering is still steaming full speed ahead under the National Government’s watch. I am glad Family First are there challenging what is happening in the Beehive. Most NZers would never have thought this gay marriage bill could affect traditional marriage in such a way to the point as removing the words “husband and wife” and now “bride and bridegroom”. Those of you who think this gay marriage bill is just great and is just making everyone equal, have been snared by the liberal left. Civil Union was supposed to be the answer to the equality issue.There is a saying – “Give them a hand and they will take your arm.”

  • LesleyNZ

    For Kevin – http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=7162 latest from Bob – Family First. Civil Union was the answer to equality.
    Couple to tie knot in Topp style
    NZ Herald 1 March 2013
    Lynda Topp is set to marry her fiancee, Donna Luxton, at a ceremony in South Canterbury this month. Exclusive rights to the wedding have been granted to a women’s magazine, but details are starting to leak out. While gay marriage has not yet been legalised, it’s understood the couple will join in a civil union and consider it a marriage. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868416 – See more at: http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=7162#sthash.FxtXeHSV.dpuf

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

      But but but I thought the word was sacred?

  • DrCP

    Dear Mr Hague

    in the interests of “not misleading” people, would you care to explain why the select committee (of which you were a member), failed to tell the media and the public upon release of your report that 55% of unique submissions are against the bill?

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/CC8B407E-C396-4389-8A3D-196DD11DFD2F/264186/50SCGA_ADV_00DBHOH_BILL11528_1_A318744_Departmenta.pdf

    Granted, 60% of form submissions were in favour, but why did you leave the former fact out of your press release?

96%