Colin Craig does a Chris Christie

3 News

Colin Craig has taken the Chris Christie approach to same-sex marriage, which is a half way house. At least he has the courage thought to say he opposes it:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says he is opposed to marriage between same-sex couples but he would support a referendum on the issue.

The Conservatives are yet to win representation in Parliament but they are polling higher than some of the Government’s current coalition partners.

A poll conducted by Colmar Brunton has found that 63 percent of New Zealanders think same-sex couples should be able to marry, while 31 percent are opposed. Civil unions between same-sex couples have been allowed in New Zealand since 2005.

Mr Craig told Q+A today that he would support a referendum on the issue.

Supporting a referendum is gay. We don’t really need to spend several million dollars to find out….for a man who is opposed to waste I would have thought wasting money on a referendum for a law change that will affect a few hundred people every year, costs nothing to implement and has no negative effect on society would have been something he would oppose.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Pete George

    But Craig uses familiar conservative Christian phrases while seeming to carefully avoid mentioning religion. Why isn’t he up front on this? Is Colin Craig deliberately dishonest?

    • Jimmie

      Perhaps as honest as Peter Dunne is about whether his hair is real or not Pete…….

      • Pokerface

        Peter Dunne’s hair HAS to be real – no-one would pay for hair like that!

      • Sorry pokerface he does pay for his hair to look like that – ask his barber….Onto topic – why do we care what Craig has to say? You could just as easily go to any of the churches – about as much value in the answer….

    • Tony

      No, he’s not dishonest. His problem is that the media are itching to find anything that allows them to describe the Conservative party as a Christian party and therefore assign them to the sidelines. 

      As to the gay marriage question I am quite conflicted. While I believe in equal rights for all I also recognize that marriage, as a word, is a religious activity (controlled by the church) which has subsequently been made a civil activity (controlled by the State). There used to be no conflict between the two as the morals of the church essentially matched the mores of the citizens. This is no-longer the case and the state wishes to widen the use of the word marriage to go beyond the boundaries defined by the church. 

      My ‘solution’ is to define all legal unions as XXXXX and reserve the term marriage for those legal unions which are conducted in accordance with a church’s rules. So, every husband and wife would be legally joined, but only those legally joined in a church ceremony would be ‘married’. This would keep the church happy while ensuring that all people had equal rights within the law of the State.  

      Of course, regardless of the legal exactitudes everyone legally joined would refer to themselves as being married – there are many occasions when normal usage of words differs from their actual (legal) meaning.   

      The gays do not want equal rights – getting civil union (and the accompanying statute amendments which meant that CU was the same as marriage except in name) was not good-enough. They wanted the (religious) term as well. This is not a human rights issue per se, it is a political battle over the use of a word.

      As to the adoption situation, if peoples’ concern was actually on the child (rather than the desires of a minority) I am not sure that it would be too big of an issue. After all, if we as a society can say that gay ‘marriage’ if fine and gay adoption is fine, I am not sure that we can logically exclude polygamy from being legally sanctioned.  

      • Gazzaw

        I agree with you totally Tony regarding the MSM wanting to sideline the Conservative Party. Craig represents the biggest threat to the possibility of a labour/greens government in 2014. Craig stands to be vilified by the Horrid, TV One, TV3 & Red Radio. I’m waiting for the first comparisons to be made to Capill & the Christian Party. As a Nat supporter I need to make the choice between a Nat/Conservative coalition or a labour/green coalition & it’s no contest.

      • Alloytoo

        Wrong way around Tony.

        Marriage predates christianity.

        (Notwithstanding which biblical marriage you wish to endorse (there are six or so)

        If Christian priests/ministers don’t want to marry gay couples they don’t have to, in exactly the same way they don’t have to marry Athiests, pagans, divorced folk, or other christians who happen to be singing from a different song sheet.

      • Bunswalla

        I disagree on two points:

        1. Craig is desperate to avoid the MSM discovering that it in fact is a christian party. As such he fails to have the courage of his own convictions. I don’t thiunk I’d ever vote for him anyway, but my estimation goes down greatly when he denies his strong religious agenda (overt or otherwise). At least Tamaki makes no seceret of it and you know what you’d get

        2. The argument for gay marriage isn’t about the definition of a word, it’s about the rights that come with it.

      • Tony

        Bunswalla – I guess that in the absence of evidence your assertion that Craig’s christianity will affect party policy is as useful as may belief that it will not. I suspect that you are anti-Christian which would mean that you are exhibiting the same set of prejudices that the gay community would accuse the fundamental christians of. By the same token would you demand that the Greens (and half of Labour) come out and admit their desire for the socialist comintern?   As the gay marriage issue – it is an issue about a word. Legislation has been enacted to ensure equivalence between CU and marriage.

        Alloytoo – would you give the same privilege to polygamists?  

      • Marriage is not a word controlled by the Church. In New Zealand it is a word controlled by a statute called the Marriage Act.

      • A civil union is not a marriage, it is like saying a Toyota Corolla is a Lexus because Toyota owns Lexus…they are different in law and in practice…people in cicil unions do not enjoy all same legal protections and privileges of people in marriages….if anything it was a con in the sales job by Helen Clark when she introduced civil unions.

      • Alloytoo

        @7c779263f47fe2df9820d71630932d1b:disqus “Alloytoo – would you give the same privilege to polygamists?

        Would you?

        It is after all one of the marraiges defined in the Christian Bible.

        I personally don’t care how people arrange their lives, as long as all parties are consenting and Spawn are looked after.

        I suspect it would require some rejigging of the welfare state though.

      • Tony

        Alloytoo – so that is a ‘yes’ then?

      • Bunswalla

        @7c779263f47fe2df9820d71630932d1b:disqus WO has already corrected your erroneous assertion about what the gay marriage argument is about – and it definitely isn’t about the definition of a word.
        Re your comment on Craig’s christianity, I note you firstly create a spurious argument (you suspect I am “anti-christian”) then draw a conclusion about “prejudices” I may have – based on your earlier assumption, and then pose a question based on this unfounded conclusion.

        I’d explain myself more fully about Craig’s hidden christian agenda but

        a) I’ve already made that point, as intelligent readers will not need reminding, and
        b) You obviously like to make assumptions without facts and then create spurious arguments based on them, so I won’t waste my time.

      • Alloytoo

        @7c779263f47fe2df9820d71630932d1b:disqus “Alloytoo – so that is a ‘yes’ then?”

        It’s a qualified “Yes” Tony.

        Now answer the question.

        Given that it’s included as “Marriage” in the christian Bible do you approve of it?

      • Tony

        Alloytoo – No, I don’t. I tend to consider the whole thing as part of the ‘slippery slope argument. As I said at the start I am conflicted as there are many areas where I sit on the libertarian side of the argument.

      • Tony

        Bunswalla – I think that your choice of words is interesting, i.e. intelligent readers will agree with you – the implication being that those who disagree are not intelligent … pretty poor way to shut down debate, and one that is favoured by the left side of most arguments. 

      • Random66

        Alloytoo, do you wonder why polygamy is not recognized as a marriage in the christian church – simple, it is not taught as being o.k. under christian teaching.  The christian church and it’s teaching comes direct from the word of God as spoken by Jesus and he was very clear ‘one man to one woman’.  To be a christian you have to be a follower of Jesus.  Any example you are refering to is OT and predates Jesus teaching so you are quite incorrect to imply polygamy is accepted as one type of marriage in the christian bible. 

      • Bunswalla

        @7c779263f47fe2df9820d71630932d1b:disqus Intelligent readers will agree that the point has been made, not necessarily that they agree with it.

        You seem to be fond of leaping to conclusions (I disagree with you so you think I’m stupid; you’re anti-christian and a left-winger) – all of them spectacularly wrong, as intelligent readers will know.

        You’re saying a lot more about yourself than anyone else, and some friendly advice – when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

      • Tony

        Bunswalla – I didn’t intend to jump to conclusions – if that is how it read I’m sorry. It is not my normal way of expressing myself.

      • Alloytoo


        Jesus endorsed marriage per se, and prohibited divorce (except for unfaithfulness)

        I don’t recall anything in context that specifically prohibits polygamy. (or any variation)

        Still in my experience the apologists are quick to say the old testament doesn’t apply are quick to invoke it when it suits them.

      • seems to me

        It seems to me that Homosexual activists want to hijack the english language to make them feel better. ie “homosexual” was replaced by the hijacked word “gay”. Another example is the current attempt to hijack the meaning of marriage.

        At least the womens movement made their own words. ie Ms instead of Mrs /Miss.   Why cant homosexuals be innovative as well.

        Whale. I would be interested to know what “marriage” legal rights you refer to that are not provided for in a Civil Union.  As far as I can see…”NOTHING”. The restriction on a homosexual couple adopting is in the Adoption Act.   Change that and then said couples could have all the legal rights of a married couple.  

        Why this insistance on changing the accepted meaning of a commonly used word.  Why not have anothe word if you dont like civil union?  Personally dont give a rats arse about whether it is a religios ceremony or a service on the beach by a celebrant. Its a marriage between a man and a woman.

        Radicals of all persuations seem  to get way to much attention in the MSM.   Many on these blogs should  thing about their rantings.  Pretend for a moment what you are saying then replace homosexuals with the Mana party…….not much different really in terms of arguments.    Thats how it seems to me.

        On the subject of polls.  Interesting that TVNZ poll did not publish the question ….Just their interpretation of the results…ie 60% of NZers support gay marriage..Shoddy journalism trying to support a point of view methinks.

    • Dr Wang

      Pete: Craig also uses familiar Oxford dictionary phrases like “husband” and “wife” – sneaky bastard must be up to something eh?

  • sbw

    Plus it’s flawed logic to have minority rights decided by referendum

    • excuse me

      That’s like saying let’s not have an Election because my party is well behind in the polls.

      • sbw

         What? You’re missing my point – rights shouldn’t be voted on – especially minority rights. If that logic were to prevail, then progress would never have been achieved in Southern USA over African-American rights.

        Have you heard of the concept ‘tyranny of the majority’?

    • Tony

      I’m not sure that I agree. Isn’t MMP itself a demonstration of governance by a minority?

      • excuse me

        You’re right to the extent that MMP doesn’t require an absolute majority for one party, but it does require the emergence of a majority alliance.

        I suspect that sbw would prefer not to have a referendum (even a non-binding one, as it would be) until those in favour of gay marriage appear to be in the majority.

      • sbw

         @e7a0967b3b5c67b4bf6821980930109d:disqus – I don’t support a referendum. I support a law change.

      • excuse me

        sbw, thanks for your “minority rights” point – it helps clarify your first comment, which was a little ambiguous.

        But you now say: “I don’t support a referendum. I support a law change.” That
        was how the anti-smacking issue was resolved, seen by most NZers as the
        tyranny of the minority.

  • Craig’s biggest problem is the left wing liars and character assassins posturing as journalists and media in this country.

    We’ll never have a true democracy while our private and public news sources remain controlled by left wing political agents.

    Craig will never get a fair shake.

    The Marxist/ liberal media will do all they can to destroy him.

    • Pokerface

      That’s a good enough reason to vote for him.

      •  Those who claim to be right wingers and who simultaneously attack Colin Craig are failing to see the big picture.
        If NZ is ever to escape the socialist mire, the fatal grip that the
        Liberals/ Marxists have on power within the National Party has to be
        Colin Craig is the man who has the best chance to break that grip.
        That is why he is the target of such intense attacks from National’s liberal left. (Farrar, Slater etc)
        If Craig can wrest control of National from the liberals, it will be a
        great achievement, and it will be a victory that will accelerate the
        left’s slide into political oblivion like nothing else can at the

    • LesleyNZ

      Colin Craig’s party is one I would consider voting for now – especiallly if the Marxist/ liberal media do try to destroy him – then I know he and his party are worth voting for! 

  • Apolonia

    Colin Craig’s mention of abiding by a referendum result shows he’s the only politician who believes in democracy and not imposing his view on the majority like Bradford and Key.

    • Tony

      Unfortunately that depends upon one’s definition of democracy. Total population participation can result in anarchy, which was why the greek states fell and why representational democracy was developed.

    • LesleyNZ

      Yes – agree Apolonia, and I heard the PM say this morning that the back track on the classroom size issue showed that they were listening to public opinion. Well and good but they didn’t listen to public opinion concerning the anti-smacking law. More and more evidence is coming to light showing how stupid this law is and how good parents are becoming “criminals” – but still the politicians won’t listen and continue to ignore the referendum on the smacking law. If they can revisit classroom size that quick – then they can revisit the smacking law issue.

    • Pukakidon

       Exactly Apolonia

      He has expressed his personal view, but does say he is open to others views.   Honesty, good on him.

  • Gazzaw

    The marriage/civil union thing is an inconsequential sideshow as far as I am concerned. All I want to see is a party that can form a viable & stable coalition with the Nats to keep the socialists out of power. If Craig is the man to do that then all power to him.

    • Tony


    • LesleyNZ

      Glad that you see that Gazzaw although the marriage/civil union thing is not an inconsequential sideshow as far as I am concerned. Act, if it is resurrected, will be too liberal for me but a Conservative type party would most probably suit me, (and many more I know), if National become more liberal and continue moving away from the conservative values that I believe in.

      • Gazzaw

        I totally understand where you are coming from Lesley.  

  • MrV

    CC has some good policies, but then just when you think it might be a breath of fresh air, out comes all his other nanny policies. In short just another nanny politician …

    • Gazzaw

      Agreed MrV BUT you could live with them whereas how would you feel about living under a labour/greens coalition?

    • Agent BallSack

      The notion that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend is a dangerous voting policy too.

  • Greg M

    ACT could still make a comeback. All they have to do is give Ruth Richardson a phone call.