Marriage Equality Matters

The Campaign for Marriage Equality has released this video in support of Marriage Equality.

‘Marriage Equality Matters’ features celebrities, media personalities, respected community leaders, sports people and everyday New Zealanders who all support marriage equality, and the campaign to extending equal marriage to all. Featuring:

Tamati Coffey (TV Presenter) and his partner Tim Smith
Anika Moa, Hollie Smith, Boh Runga (Musicians)
Rachel Hunter (NZ’s Got Talent Judge/Supermodel)
Brooke Howard Smith (TV Presenter) his partner Amber Peebles (Radio DJ)
Nigel Latta (Psychologist)
Danyon Loader (Olympian)
Jason Kerrison (Musician)
Jason Fa’afoi (TV Presenter) and his partner Anna and their son Charlie
Pearl McGlashan (Actress)
Ali Campbell (Musician)
Alison Mau (TV Presenter)
Orene Ai’I (Rugby Player)
Dame Cath Tizard (Former Governor General)
Mike King (Talkback host/Comedian)
Oliver Driver (Actor/Presenter)
Richie Hardcore (DJ)
Turumakina Duley (Tattoo Artist)
Amy Usherwood (Actress)
Nick Dwyer (Radio DJ)


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

    Yes, marriage equality does matter, including for an often ignored minority, transgenders.

    • Travis Poulson

      I’m happy to continue ignoring transgenders. As far as I’m concerned most of them do it for reasons of sexual perversion/prostitution or attention seeking behaviour probably as a result of untreated/unaddressed issues of abuse in childhood years.

      This *MY OPINION*, not reflective of Cameron Slater or the Whaleoil blog.

      • Teachersrock

        Wow, the level of ignorance in that post is just stunning.

        • Bunswalla

          OMG, the level of insight in that rebuke is just pathetic.

          • Travis Poulson

            Don’t expect much from a person suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. Wonder how the parents from *that school up north* feel about having a teacher like this ‘teaching’ their kids.

          • Teachersrock

            Well when you have a fool claiming transgender is a sexual perversion the only accurate response is to highlight the stunning level of their ignorance.

            I would LOVE Travis to go up to a TG person and tell them they are a sexual perversion. It would be quite a sight to see what would happen to old 1950s Trav.

  • Stevo

    Oh, spare me.

  • cows4me

    “marriage is only a word” as Stevo would say, oh spare me. If it’s only a fucking word why the drive to convince those like myself it is only a word. Because it’s not only a word, I know it, these bullshit artists know it to, they just lack the honesty to say so.

  • LesleyNZ

    Oh what would a lot of those listed know about what a good long-lasting marriage is all about? Are the above VIP’s opinions is to be taken note of – rather than us lowly “everyday NZer’s” opinions? Which of the above are the everyday NZers?

  • spollyike

    FFS who really cares what a bunch of celebrities think about anything. WO, it thought you were above this sort of thing, or are you like many of the brainwashed masses a blind follower of the leftist media and celebrity peer pressure. I didn’t think so but why on this issue. It is a bit like DPF and his stance on the Mens only clubs, hard to understand the motive? Marriage comes down to this: It is not up to the government to define marriage (at least it shouldn’t be), this is the problem, politics and religion should not mix. It is up to each group to define marriage for their own purposes i.e. muslims and polygomy, chistians and hetro only etc, the gays and tranny’s can define their own take on it and call it whatever, even marriage if they like. However for the purposes of legal issues and adoption etc which is really a completely different aspect resulting from marriage it is up to the government to legislate however they want with the economic interests of the nation at heart. For example gay couples of 2 men would have a higher family income than married heterosexual couples (given the supposed pay inequality that exists), so should heterosexual couples get some sort of lower tax rate to make up for the inequality of higher income gay couples – this is where the government has a role – not in defining marriage itself.

    • Ok I will bite. The government isn’t defining marriage. Never has and never will. We are. We invented marriage – not the government and certainly not the church.

      And since 1955 we have changed our views on what it means to be married – women can use contraception, decide when, if & how many kids they want, work outside the home & get divorced.

      Marriage was originally a covenant to secure property, status & heirs. In the last 40 years we have seen a dramatic move away from this as it has become about choice, love & commitment. Society has changed. So the government has no choice but to change the laws to suit. Laws brought it by blind indoctrination from a controlling Church I might add too.

      But I like your proposal that each group decides what marriage means – we should get marriage removed from the law so that it becomes what it was originally – a consensual choice between consenting adults free from State & Church.

      As for lower tax for hetero couples – can’t see the relevance. Tax is based on individual income not family. And if you want to stereotype – there’s a lot of gay boys in the hospitality, fashion & hair industries & they arent exactly high wages!

      • Seems to me

        Seems to me that you may not have heard of the tax codes M ML etc etc with working for families, etc ad nor see um.
        Sort of reminds me of the word Gay, assumed by the hetrosexual society to refer to themselves and not the state of gaiety( when word homosexual was already available.) Now we have the stupidity that many are complaining that kids are using gay to mean crap…..and it shouldn’t be allowed. Its nothing about rights, its all about use of a word. Can really understand why everyone has their knickers in a twist.
        As to celebrities opinions……so ferking what…???

        • spollyike

          I agree if homosexuals can use the word gay for a meaning of their choice, as opposed to the original meaning, then surely everyone else has the same right to use that word for a meaning of their choosing. Fairs fair surely?

        • Seems to me that you have missed the obvious – many LGBT are parents and already collect WFF.

          Agree re the gay word & celebrity stuff. The latter undermine the cause more than anything.

          But in this superficial world celebrity is what matters – the masses, especially women (of which there are more of than men so therefore form the largest proportion of the population) love them hence the growth in gossip mags & reality shows.

        • The other point you & spolly have missed is that based on your tax proposal gay women would qualify for the biggest tax breaks.

          You both seem to assume that LGBT dont already have children, and receive welfare; anyone can adopt regardless of their sexual orientation. The only barriers for the LGBT remaining is the right to adopt as a couple and the right to marry. But make no mistake, gay couples are already adopting or having their own children whether from previous relationships or IVF etc.

          And in terms of income, jobs & taxes – marriage & sexual orientation is irrelevant; with respect to these things de factos have the exact same rights & obligations as married couples under the Relationship Property Act.

          This law will change nothing. It will merely solidify a societal change that has been in the making for decades. It merely validates what already exists, what is already lawful.

          • Seems to me

            Validates what already exits! So if the rights already exist why do you need to change its name? Your logic says that homosexuals already have all the rights they need. So once again it comes down to just making this very small proportion (estimates I have read says it as being only a small percentage of the population) feel good.
            Shit! what a great reason to spend all this gummint money and suffer all this angst.

          • Hetero couples have all the rights that they need to0, does that mean we should remove their right to marry too? Just abolish marriage altogether?

            And you assume that getting married means you change your name – another thing that has changed since 1955…..

            By homosexuals I assume you mean gay men & women. But you forget to include BI & trannys

      • Rebecca

        Personally I have decided I want to be a concert pianist but the field is controlled by bigoted elitists who say I don’t qualify. Who are they to say that one of the characteristics of a concert pianist is that you trained and practiced playing the piano? I find such things oppressive so why should others’ definition of concert pianist be more important than mine? This sort of exclusion is not compatible with the free society we live in. Our nation is all about freedom and equality, not discrimination to suit an empowered elite. Therefore the definition needs to be changed so that I too can exercise my right to hold my head high as a concert pianist without being oppressed by antediluvian misogynists. After all, concert pianist is just a term and people who try to insist it has additional qualities are selfishly trying to keep all the additional rights and privileges for themselves. Only when truth and freedom triumphs over oppression will people like me believe that we are truly accepted in an inclusive society.

        • That’s a long winded way to say that you believe marriage is about procreation (assuming that is the reason why you attempt to use your inability to become a concert pianist as a relevant metaphor).

          I consider a consenting adult in a lawful relationship as eligible for marriage. So your piano metaphor doesnt wash. Looks like you are going to not only show you have musicianship, but pass the exams etc and gain some emotional depth so you can demonstrate the level of expression and emotion a concert pianist requires to play their piece.

          I’m a pianist – bad example lady.

          • Rebecca

            LOL, you’re applying a sophist reliance on a false appreciation of fairness. Well, mine is an issue of fairness too. You say you’re a pianist? Gee, so am I. Why? Because I consider (sic) that I want to be. Why do you say I have an inability to be a pianist? Clearly you’re one of the oppressors denying the rights of others to enjoy an institutionalized exalted status you want to preserve for your own clique. Fact is that under current expectations I can be a pianist because I consider I want to be. Therefore it must be fair. And if your obsolete elitist selfish definitions can’t cope then they need to be swept away by the winds of truth and justice. Alternatively, perhaps we can apply the common sense reality that words and phrases *do* have meaning and if you don’t comply, then you don’t comply.

          • Lion_ess


          • Rebecca

            A bee. Yes, you can be a bee because anybody who says otherwise is denying your human (insect?) rights. Good example.

          • Lion_ess

            Too stupid for code?

          • Rebecca

            A bee only has one sting, don’t waste it – or perhaps you want that changed as well to make it fairer.

  • phronesis

    WOW celebrities, so famous you have to tell us what they do so we can maybe remember who the fuck they are. Next time they can tell us how great homoeopathy is and how their nutritionist saved their lives. Gasp!

  • spollyike

    Since when did Nigel Latta go from politically incorrect to politically correct – must’ve missed that show..”how to be a politically correct sellout”…guess it’s since he became a celebrity!

    • spollyike

      seriously, what has happened to him, did he get a bump to the head????

    • Travis Poulson

      “Since when did Nigel Latta go from politically incorrect to politically correct”

      Heh, nice one. But we all know it’s just a fancy bullshit gimmick for tv. If he goes out and clubs a fur seal, I’ll retract my statement.

      • Teachersrock

        Ever seen him or talked to him in person Travis?

        No, I doubt it, so you are talking out your arse as usual.

        • Travis Poulson

          Oh, changed your name again today Paul G-R? when do you expect to use Gayguy again? or kosh103, or Meg? Or are you just feeling like a bit of a Teacherscock today…

  • Greg

    Who really cares what these so called celebrities think, just because you are occasional in front of the public doesn’t make you any more intelligent than the guy in the street although I do believe the celebs think it does. Look at the names posted and think to yourself would you invite any of them home to your place?

    • spollyike

      I cringe when i read most of these names. I don’t know how to define this particular type of new age person/kiwi but something inside me recoils when i recognise one of them…like some sixth sense to run for safety!!

  • spollyike

    Ship these self proclaimed “celebrities” out of the country for starters (perhaps to the birthplace of the green party), then we will be one step down the path to getting NZ back on the right track!

  • Lion_ess

    Mostly singers & cue card readers. To hold these people up as some sort of brainy brigade qualified to influence social standards is just embarrassing. Brendan Horan’s name should be there too – he’s been a tv weatherman.

    Personally, I would prefer to see people who are qualified to debate the numerous social and legal impacts of marriage equality, rather than someone who’s a lezzie, wants to marry their girlfriend and reads a cue card.

  • tarkwin

    Did any of them get past Shortland Street? Excepting of course Orene who played for Northland. A real bloke.

  • stanman

    what a load of shit

    Mike King-“comedian”..gimmie a fucking break- hes a pig wrangler and self confessed headcase

    • Travis Poulson

      Don’t be an arsehole. A low blow mocking someone that has/is suffered/suffering from depression. He’s doing some excellent work for mental health awareness and youth suicide, but as you’ve displayed (and 3 other people who liked your comment), there’s still some intellectually deficient and ignorant arse lickers out there.

  • I look forward to this message being extended to being able to marry close relatives, because if it’s all about love, why shouldn’t a man be able to marry his sister? After all, don’t we live in a free country, or what?

    • If those kinds of relationships become legal then that would be relevant.

      I must say I do find it concerning your obsession with marrying a relative or animal……do you have something to confess to your priest this weekend?

      • Well, there’s the new persecuted minority that is being left behind by this whole debate. What’s the point of equality if it’s not equality for all? It seems the promoters of “marriage equality” are being very selective as to who should have equality, thus making a huge joke in yet another way of the whole thing.

        I’m not the one with the obsession. If you want an obsession, just view the clip above.

  • Mike King it on the list, Same man who loved Pork and made a living running faggots down. Bit of hypocracy Mike

    • Don’t believe in redemption then eh?

  • filthy sausage

    Hmm so should I also be listening to Lucy Lawless in regards to enviromental issues?

  • CowboyBebop

    In reply to all those dumb ‘They’re celebs, not people on the street!’ comments:
    “In May 2012, a One News Colmar Brunton poll of 1005 registered voters
    found that 63 percent of those surveyed supported same-sex marriage… those aged between 18 and 34 (78% vs 66% for those
    aged 35 to 54 and 46% for those aged 55 and over)…”

    You want traditional marriage? Well, that’s when a guy goes out to rape a girl after which he can marry her. Or maybe when a guy decides he wants a couple of wives to do all of his work for him. Read your fucking Bible – cos I’ve read it far too many times in Sunday School. I also read about how Jesus said that one should take care to respect others and also that one should mind their own beeswax and leave the judging to himself and God.

    You reckon marriage is all about procreation? Well, fuck me, we gotta stop all those older-than-50 couples from marrying! Also, what about testing all those engaged to see if they’re infertile.

    • Contractor

      Hmmm. Before I start CowboyBebop, just let me state where I sit on this. I really don’t give a shit who marries who, live and let live and all that, and if two folk want to marry good on them be they male-female, gay cpl, I couldn’t give a shit if they were brother and sister to be honest, just keep the curtains closed. So if it takes a law change for this equality well and good and stop me in the street I’ll happily support it and say why not?
      “you want traditional marriage? Well that’s when a guy goes out to rape a girl after which he can marry her. Or maybe a guy decides he wants a couple of wives to do all his work for him.”
      With this one statement you have probably set your cause back and also left no doubt what a disturbed fucktard you are. I know literally thousands of people in “traditional ” marriages, myself included. I reckon I can pretty categorically say rape or multiple wives play no part in absolutely none of I missing something? Is me and my social circle doing it all wrong and the rest of the planet conducts themselves as you see it? So if it’s “traditional” marriage that creates this hideous state of affairs if we do change the law and allow same sex CPUs to marry in the” traditional” way the rest of us do will this create an outbreak of marital rape and polygamy amongst the LGBT cpls who marry in the “traditional way”? Or is it only heterosexual males afflicted with this need to rape their partners? That’s a pretty damning statement to make and did that include your mum and dad’s relationship as well? Cause believe me, every one I know has this idea marriage is about 2 people who love each other and want to spend their days together, be they gay straight whatever. You seem to be the odd one out with your fucked up view of marriage. Perhaps that’s why some struggle to see your point of view, as much as I’m all for equality your comments make me wonder if perhaps those that so vigorously oppose you may in fact have you figured out better than I do.

      • CowboyBebop

        Good for you for supporting marriage equality… but not so good for you that you didn’t read the whole post. Perhaps you didn’t read the line right after it about reading the Bible, no?

        You will have noticed that over various blogs and forums, there have been religious people protesting marriage equality because they believe that marriage is a “traditional” ceremony originating from the Bible or other holy texts. My poke there is that they what they think is “traditional marriage” as definied by the Bible isn’t actually what is in the Bible – rather there are many examples of God encouraging men to marry multiple women and also God commanding raped women be forced to marry their rapist. Many people also quote from the Old Testament the chapter of Levicitius the phrase “thou shalt not sleep with a man as you would a woman”, whilst hypocritically ignoring many of the other do’s and don’ts in that chapter, like not eating shellfish.

        I would just like to point out that the whole brother/sister thing, even behinds curtains… there is a very good reason that is outlawed. Do you really want to chance fucked up babies as a result of severe inbreeding?

        I should add that my view of what is a ‘normal marriage’ is pretty fucking different from most – my parents have been married for 30-odd years now and I have like 8 siblings. Irish Catholics breed like rabbits, unfortunately.

        In summary: please read the whole post before being outraged. But thank you for being neutral/supportive (?) of equality.

  • BR

    There is already marriage equality. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    Don’t be fooled. The ridiculous idea of two men or two women “marrying” each other is being peddled by the homosexual lobby (actually a loud mouthed collective of hard line leftists), who would gladly promote kiddy fiddling if they thought it would advance their agenda. They were happy enough to stand alongside the pedophiles during the early days of the campaign to promote homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle choice.


  • Blair Mulholland

    I don’t think Alison Mau has any right to talk about the value of marriage when she ran away from her own.

    • I disagree. She has the right to talk about the right to get married. Not the value per se. The main theme was actually about what love is. Ironic given so many marriages are devoid of true love (unconditional, faithful, honest, communicative & committed).

      Anecdotal evidence suggests cheating is evident in 70% of marriages with majority committed by mean.

      If those marriages end in divorce they have the right to remarry. Why shouldnt Ali?

  • To anyone who is educated, intelligent & over & beyond the celebrity culture, the ad is stupid. It means nothing, achieves little & in fact undermines the cause.

    However, most people love all things celebrity, all things fame machine so well-known faces promoting fantastic causes carries real weight.

    Now to the issue. I have said it before, I will say it again & will keep saying for as long as Cameron keeps posting on this.

    There is no rational, intellectual, scientific, moral, ethical or humane justification for continuing to deny couples already in a lawful relationship the right to marry. Objections stated against this are often morally & ethically repugnant and indicative of someone void of a moral compass.

    The only reason why any of you object is because of misguided views on what you think God and the Bible say about the subject, or because you dont like same sex couples – oh hang on, I mean men as no doubt you dont mind women hooking up – having sex.

    Thinking something is icky or against what you believe is not reason enough to deny someone the right to marry. It is a human right. Not a God given, not a heterosexual right, a human right. Something that history has demonstrated time & time again.

    So once again I will list the 12 obvious reasons why all your arguments, reasons & views to justify your bigotry are dead in the water.

    1) The Church did not invent marriage – we did

    2) The Church is irrelevant in a secular society

    3) Irrespective of ones beliefs, any anti gay sentiment has its roots in a blind acceptance of indoctrination by a controlling Church

    4) Biblical references to justify anti gay/marriage sentiment are wrong. The Old Testament was an ancient code written to separate the Israelites from the Palestinians and the New Testament refers to homosexuality in the context of rape of male slaves by the male heterosexual masters

    5) If the Bible had any relevance then women should have their right to vote removed (Corinthians states women are not equal), cheating wives should be put to death, divorce should be illegal (punishable by death), we should be eating locusts, not mixing fibres & cut off the hands of any wife who touches their husband’s genitals etc etc etc. The list of crazy in the Bible is endless. Then there is the fact that a pedophile translated it, Catholics add an extra book & that interpretations from the original holy scrolls….assuming God did write them via moses, are questionable at best thanks to their many translations & editions.

    6) So-called gay sex is not the monopoly of the LGBT community – whether oral, anal or the use of toys. And there is the fact that God created men with erogenous zones up their arse so clearly it has a sexual purpose.

    7) Most pedophiles are heterosexual men – 80% of those who offend against boys identify themselves as hetero

    8) marriage equality is not revolutionary. It is just next; marriage is no longer about property status & procreation. It is now about love, choice & mutual commitment where women can choose when & if they want to have kids & how many.

    9) The marriage act is outdated – women can use contraceptives, work outside the home & get divorced

    10) The Civil Union Act is separatist law in breach of basic human rights. It discriminates purely on the basis of sexual orientation. Further LGBT community can become celebrants and marry heteros so why can they do that and not get married themselves?

    11) We invented marriage, we can redefine it if we want.

    12) Marriage equality has nothing to do with bestiality, incest or child abuse. LGBT are consenting adults who have the legal right to form sexual relationships. Animals, children and relatives do not. Neither do plants, jugs or toasters.

    The only thing I will say in favour of those who are anti is that we do need to make sure the rights of the religious are watertight.

    Take Middleton Grange School – pentecostal Christian school. An openly gay man successfully applied for a job there and did not disclose his sexual orientation. Normally that should be fine as it should be irrelevant. But to deliberately choose a school that would disagree with his values was unfair. Yet when the school dismissed him on those grounds they got fined & he got compensation. Guaranteed some activist gay couples will try & test the church this way unless the Amendment is absolute in securing the rights of a church to deny a marriage ceremony.

    • Rebecca

      Have you considered the effect on communication if we keep sacrificing jargon? Example, consider the term “brick and tile”. When you’re wading through house ads that term carries a lot of meaning and spares the need for heaps of repetitive description. Now imagine that people whose houses have monolithic cladding over untreated timber and no eaves, decide that they want to call their houses brick and tile as well, to prevent discrimination. The only real effect is that the term loses its meaning and becomes another way of saying house- but we already had a word for house.

      Seems to me we need to take care to maintain as much jargon as possible, in the interests of efficient communication as life gets faster and faster. Personally I don’t care who shacks up with who, but maybe the answer is to make marriage a subset of “barriage” which is the new legal all-encompassing term that carries all the rights and meanings. Barriage is disinterested in gender, meanwhile marriage retains its current meaning and the importance it has for some people, and everybody can be happy. Or perhaps not.

    • Seems to me

      Seems to me that the view is that if you are pro retaining marriage as a
      heterosexual activity then you must be a bible basher….. WRONG.

      Personally not a religious person at all.

      But seems to me that marriage is celebrated in all cultures in one way or another. Be it the Pygmies of Deepest Dark forests, thru to stone age tribes that get discovered from time to time. as well as all the “regular” people of the world.

      Guess what…those marriage ceremonies are usually hetrosexual. It seems to me that itss only a bunch of western activists that are bored with life and have got themselves on a crusade. Call me a tradionalist, call me old fashioned.

      But I like calling a rose a rose and marriage being a man woman thing.

      I just dont go for this”There is no rational, intellectual, scientific, moral, ethical or humane justification for continuing to deny homosexual couples…” malarkey.

      • Seems to me that if your arguments have no real validity and you are not a bible basher that you are merely objecting because you find the topic icky.

        Well so do I. But it’s their choice. They are doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the law – the law that has vowed to protect their rights so I accept that have a good case. It has no impact on my marriage.

        “Be it the Pygmies of Deepest Dark forests, thru to stone age tribes that get discovered from time to time. as well as all the “regular” people of the world. Guess what…those marriage ceremonies are usually hetrosexual.”

        Usually but not always.

    • spollyike

      “We invented marriage, we can redefine it if we want.” NO, heterosexuals invented marriage and they can redefine it if they want. This is a big difference to homosexuals redefining it if they want.

  • TayheiNotts

    Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    End of story.
    The political party that says so will get plenty of support from me; even if they want to take 85% of my earnings and give it to some ethnic minority.
    Civil Unions are between two human beings; be they male, female or any other gender.

  • LabTested

    Why should marriage be limited to only 2 people. Here is the official party Policy of the Pirate Party of Germany

    All forms of cohabitation must be able to attain civil union status. Concepts for
    expanding the civil union to a registered conjugal relationship of more than two
    persons must be developed and implemented

    Not heard of the Pirate party, they got 9% of the vote in Berlin State elections in 2011

    I can’t believe that NZ is so backward and not pushing this sort of social engineering (page 19)