The National Party and Marriage Equality

It is just eight days since the National Party conference voted in favour of allowing couples in a civil union to adopt children.  National party conferences are usually filled with the more conservative members of the Party.  The liberals generally don’t bother going to conference and often have better things to do than spend a whole weekend at a school assembly.  The vote was a big shift for National because two thirds of conference delegates, from across the country, voted in favour of the remit.

It is a fair to then assume two thirds of this current Parliament will also vote in favour to send the Marriage Equality bill to select committee.  National MPs need to listen to their own members, ‘man up’ and realise that allowing gay and lesbian New Zealanders to marry is a step in the right direction, not a step too far.

National Party MPs need to stick to the Party’s values:

National is the Party of equality of opportunity and strong families and communities.  Many gay and lesbian New Zealanders are already parenting children.  Some are in civil unions, some in de facto relationships.  The National Party believes in family values, not family structures. National wants strong communities of New Zealanders that put their children and families first by caring, nurturing and encouraging their children.  Equality of opportunity and strong families and communities are fundamental to the marriage equality debate.

National is the Party of individual freedom and choice. New Zealanders should have the freedom to marry, if they choose to.   It makes no sense having a two tiered system. It seems crazy to me that if a woman loves another woman that they can’t choose to marry. Sure, they could civil union and that comes with some rights of being married.  But it doesn’t come with the right to adopt jointly as a couple – individual gay and lesbian New Zealanders can adopt as an individual but they are barred from doing that as a couple.  Children are already living in families with two gay or lesbian parents – but their parents have different rights. All children deserve the opportunity to have the stability and protection of adoption, by having two legally recognised parents.  The easiest way to allow that is to amend the Marriage legislation and overhaul the Adoption Act.

National is the Party of limited government.  Government should not determine different rights and different tiers of relationship contracts.  Marriage equality makes sense and simplifies legislation.

So, all you National Party MPs out there sitting on the fence.  “Man up!” As Paula Bennett says in support of marriage equality “How could I deny anyone being as happy as me!!!”

And how dare you MPs deny children the protection of a secure and permanent family life.  Remember Bob McCoskrie’s 21 reasons why marriage matters… how about we make sure marriage can matter for everyone?  Remember, freedom should be for everyone, not just the few.


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.

  • Let the National party vote in support of the invasion of the institution of marriage by homosexuals.

    As long as they are prepared for the electoral consequences then go for it.

    They should know that there are a lot more than 5% of the population who feel strongly opposed to the issue, and that number of voters can have a serious effect on election outcomes.

    More and more people are starting to realise that the Nats in reality are just Labour in drag, and won’t do anything to right the damaging cultural changes the left have wrought upon this country and our society.

    This could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in respect of people’s tolerance of National’s constant left wing duplicity.

    • Mike Hunt

      It’s called democracy in the 21st century redbleater

      •  Glad you feel that way Mike for in terms of increased electoral support, Louisa Wall and her bill are a Godsend for the Conservative Party.

      • Mike Hunt

        I’m hoping so

  • Boiledchook

    oh yes, the sky will fall in Redbaiter. Must ignore the stats on hetrosexual marriage and child abuse within hetrosexual marriages.

  • Its not “marriage equality”.

    Its “marriage invasion”.

    • Mitch

      Still haven’t heard any plausible argument on how this will affect your heterosexual marriage in the real world. Enlighten me! Day to day, what repercussions will the gay marriage bill have on your life, your marriage, your relationships or any other aspect of your life if it passes?

      • None at all <_<

        Moving along

      • Guest

        the short answer is – absolutely none at all – so make it legal!!

        i’m perfectly comfortable with homosexuality being made as normal as it possibly can, but then lets all get on with our lives and stop the manufactured coverage of “gay issues”, so as a consequence to legalizing gay marriage and adoption…gays should then cease to play the cards like “i’m a corrupt MP but stop picking on me because i’m gay” or “please pay for our parade down ponsonby rd to celebrate our sexuality” etc etc etc

        this is clearly a subject close to whales heart (and yes, I acknowledge its his blog!! which i otherwise greatly enjoy) but its blown entirely out of proportion here…

    • Gayguy

      Oh you hate filled old bigot RB. 

      The end is near for you and your kind. In 50 years you will be looked at in the same way as we look at those who opposed black civil rights. 

      • Razorlips81

        And has black civil rights done any good – NO! Just like you bloody poofters, a cancer of our society!

      • Mike Hunt

        Maybe put homosexuals in chains too retardlips..?

      • Razorlips81

        No back in the closet Mi Khunt! The first mistake was letting the little perverts out! Now look at the bloody mess.

      • GeorgeRomero

        Gayguy , can you define”BIGOT?”

      • Gayguy

        So Razor are you saying you would support laws that would limit peoples rights based on race?

  • Guest

    the oldies were just humoring the kids not thinking that it would matter

  • Apolonia

    Why don’t they merge with Labour and get it over with?

  • DangerMice

    If an atheist gets married, did they invade marriage as well?

  • Margaret

    Paula Bennett is married? 

  • le sphincter

    Finlayson , an openly gay National cabinet minister is opposed to gay marriage.

    • Apolonia

       That’s because he can read a dictionary, and knows that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
      A union between two people of the same gender is something else.

      • Gayguy

        There is a bit more to Finlayson than meets the eye, and if you are going to use the dictionary as a yard stick Apolonia then you should know the dictionary is rewritten on a yearly basis.   

  • Polish_pride

    No one will give a shit after the UFO disclosure at the olympics ;)

  • Pingback: Update for 31 July | Protect Familes()

  • Camryn

    Red and others – When the church “owned” the marriage process, it owned the right to define the term. The church ceded ownership of the concept to the state – a long time ago, and willingly. Thus, “marriage” is now a secular concept. The state has a duty to treat everyone equally and can define that equality any way it wants. This is going to mean that the union of marriage will be open to any two consenting adults.

    To put it another way, established religion gave away the term already. Religious types can’t complain about what the new owners do with it if they (or their forebears) didn’t complain about giving it away in the first place. Perhaps the religious establishment felt that it could strengthen their version of “marriage” by allowing it to be imbued with state power, but that was a miscalculation in the long term.

    Long story short, the church could’ve retained “marriage” much like they’ve retained other terms/concepts such as baptism. In such a hypothetical, the state would only issue “civil unions” – and would presumably do so to any relationship it registered without religious complaint. But that didn’t happen. I suggest you get over it and perhaps lobby your church to invent a new word for “religious marriage” and apply that term any way you wish.

  • Pingback: NZ: The National Party and Marriage Equality |()