Maurice Williamson on Marriage Equality

Maurice Williamson has an opinion piece in the Howick and Pakuranga Times on Marriage Equality:

GAY marriage – so what? The way some people have been carrying on during the gay marriage debate alarms me.

I’ve had people bellowing down the phone to me and my staff at both my electorate office and office at Parliament.

The general flavour from those opposed is the world is about to fall apart if the Marriage Amendment Bill is passed.

Some think its passing will somehow devalue their marriage. I can tell you this now – it won’t.

I’ve had a Catholic priest advocating that I’m supporting something that’s so unnatural – interesting from one who has vowed to be celibate for his entire life.

In the mid 1980s, people claimed the same thing of the homosexual law reform.

At that time some of the most ghastly outcomes were prophesied. Fortunately, none of those outrageous consequences came to pass. 

He should have asked the Catholic priest what he was doing about boy buggery.

Fast forward to 2013 and some of the rhetoric being bandied around now about the Marriage Amendment Bill is simply absurd.

Let’s boil the Bill down to its simplest form – it will allow consenting gay couples to get married.

You would think from the way some people are carrying on that politicians are trying to make gay marriage compulsory for everyone. We’re not.

It is clear from the extensive communications I’ve received on this matter, the Pakuranga electorate is split almost 50:50 on the issue.  Just over half the calls, emails, letters and texts to my office are supportive, with the remainder opposed.

So, with no clear mandate from the people I represent, I am going with what I feel is right.

Most of the opposing arguments are patently absurd. I am yet to hear one single decent valid argument opposing marriage equality.

And that’s where my libertarian beliefs kick in. As long as it involves consenting adults acting of their own free will, and no damage is caused to the rest of us, then I’m happy to support it.

I’m yet to be convinced that the legislation will have any impact whatsoever on my marriage, or anyone else’s for that matter. I can’t fathom how it would.

The passing of the Marriage Amendment Bill will in my view signal how much we’ve grown as a country and that we are an inclusive society.

I’m sure this column will generate a fresh wave of criticism from certain factions, but I’ve got a thick enough skin to handle that.

In my opinion, the world will keep turning once the Marriage Amendment Bill is passed and that we should focus our attention on the things that really matter, such as growing our economy, lifting standards in education, reducing crime and delivering better health care.

I would have thought those were the issues that really mattered.

Precisely. Spot on Maurice.

 


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.

  • Gazzaw

    Well Maurice these callers might irk you but you have been an electorate MP long enough to know that it’s your job to listen to your constituents. It’s your choice whether you heed their concerns – ignore them or oppose them and you might just pay the price at the ballot box. Your call Maurice.

    • Rachel

      Maurice said it was 50/50 in his electorate, so how can he avoid doing what you’re urging him not to do?

      • Gazzaw

        All that is required is for a referendum to be held to determine what the majority of the public want not what the MPs want for political expediency and their own self interest.

        • unsol

          A referendum – especially one that is not binding – is no different to the having your say via emailing or calling your MP or voting in MSM polls; it may be a conscience vote, but for MPs their popularity is the ultimate priority.

          Maurice’s electorate is split so he’s weighed the arguments – and lack thereof (scaremongering & handwringing do not equate to logic & reason), & decided that his own values are the best option.

          Conversely, Murray McCully’s electorate are overwhelmingly against so he is voting no.

          This is democracy at work & given the number of MPs likely to vote yes after having been hit with an onslaught of public opinion it is therefore, reasonable & logical to assume that any referendum would produce the same vote – a majority yes.

  • Liberty

    ” that’s where my libertarian beliefs kick
    in. As long as it involves consenting adults acting of their own free will, and
    no damage is caused to the rest of us, then I’m happy to support it.”

    If only Maurice’s Libertarian beliefs would kick in more often.

  • berenddeboer

    Maurice: “I’m yet to be convinced that the legislation will have any impact
    whatsoever on my marriage, or anyone else’s for that matter. I can’t
    fathom how it would.”

    I suppose he never looked into the marriage statistics of countries where libertarians suddenly found out a government regulation they did like. In all those countries marriage rates did drop significantly, and the children born out of wedlock increased dramatically.

    No impact? It has a great impact on how marriage is viewed.

    And it really impacts marriage: no longer is it a union between man and wife, but marriage is now defined as some kind of commitment that gets state blessing.

    • mike

      You’re right, look at the stats in NZ… is it something like 4 out of 5 Maori kids born out of wedlock every year?

      It’s not gay marriage causing those stats is it.

      • berenddeboer

        Nope, because marriage has been undermined for decades now. You think gay marriage will help? Or just be the final nail?

        • So how will your marriage or intention to marry be changed by the Bill being passed?

          • berenddeboer

            You no longer marry. What you do is enter into some kind of Partner A/Partner B relation. Me personally? I’ll have to give up on civil marriage if this bill passes (i.e. if I were to marry I wouldn’t get a state license). It’s an abomination. Only God has the right to define what marriage is. Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but God what is God’s.

          • Well whaddaya know, your argument boils down to you wanting the law to conform to your religious beliefs. Tough luck, NZ has freedom of religion. Anyway can you provide any objective proof that your religious beliefs are right and the Christians for gay marriage are wrong?

          • berenddeboer

            Richard, what freedoms do those people have who do not want part of same sex marriage? The florist? The school teacher? The civil servant? The employer? The employee? Please tell me.

          • People who don’t want same-sex marriage don’t have to have one. That’s pretty simple.
            Are you seriously proposing that letting people do something that is against your religious beliefs is a breach of your religious freedom? If you are then I guess you don’t eat bacon as that breaches the religious freedom of muslims.

          • Gayguy

            You are not going to be forced to marry someone of the same sex, your life will be impacted not a jot. Yet because of YOUR BELIEFS, others must be denied the rights you get because your genetic make up includes heterosexuality?

            Yeaaa, not in the 21st century mate.

          • LesleyNZ

            That is just rubbish talk Gayguy. You are either male or female. What specific gene has been found for heterosexuality or homosexuality? Matt McCarten also says there is a gay gene. Where is it then? Where is the scientific proof?

          • Gayguy

            The scientific proof has been in print for a number of years now. And there is a difference between gender and sexuality. Something the anti gay squad seem to either pretend is not so, or are just uneducated about such basic things.

          • LesleyNZ

            Where is the printed scientific proof? What particular gene is it and what does it look like? Couldn’t find anything on Google. You are either male or female.

          • Gayguy

            Oh good lord. How dumb are you?

          • LesleyNZ

            That is not a proper answer. Very childish of you Gayguy.You said there is a gay gene. Where? When was it discovered? Show me the written scientific peer reviewed evidence. I want to see the facts not opinion.

          • Gayguy

            I am talking about sexuality you are talking about gender. When you can figure out the difference, come back and we can talk.

          • LesleyNZ

            Where is the scientific evidence of a gay gene. You said there was evidence. Nothing to do with sexuality or gender – we are talking genes.

          • Dr Wang

            “NZ has freedom of religion”

            Sorry, but not as far as marriage is concerned. Eg. bigamy laws prevent the Muslim man marrying his 4 wives here.

          • Yeah, and there’s no freedom of speech because of defamation laws and the ban on kiddie porn.

          • Rodger T

            Which god and how do you know you are worshipping the right one?

          • Gayguy

            What absolute nonsense. Marriage is not God’s, you have no right to a marriage in NZ because of the church, you have it because of the law. And of cause you can still marry once the law passes, that is the whole point to allow 2 consenting adults to MARRY EACH OTHER.

          • berenddeboer

            So Gayguy, what should happen to a teacher who believes marriage is between a man and a woman? Or a Christian businessman who does not want to deal with gay weddings? Fined? Locked up? Shot?

          • Same treatment as a teacher or business man who did the same thing for an interracial marriage. Do you have a problem with that too?
            You’ve also not responded to my of my question to you berenddeboer. Not got any arguments beyond “my god says so”?

          • berenddeboer

            Hi Richard, some people ask questions in order to ask further questions. Not much use to have a discussion with them as they don’t ask to learn.

            But your question is important, and I was amiss not addressing it. So here it goes.

            If I were to say to you: this is the true god, or that is the true god, would that be satisfactory? Even if you would accept it, you would take my authority. So no, that’s clearly unsatisfactory. Only the revelation of God himself would do, as you would not have to depend on the testimony of others.

            God reveals himself in his creation and in his Word (the Bible). The Bible clearly testifies of itself that is given by God, and that it is infallible. So you do not need to accept any human testimony. You only need to study to the Bible.

            You can claim not to see it, but claiming “I didn’t know the law” is not an acceptable defence in human law, so we can dismiss that. It is: how much effort did you take to know the law?

            Before you claim: but thousands of other religions make the same claim: they don’t. As far as I know only 2 books claim to have been given directly by God: the Bible, and thousands of years later the Koran. It does not take much study to dismiss the testimony of the Koran as it is all too human.

            So there you have it: do not trust my testimony, nor the church, nor any other person, but God’s own. John 4:42: “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”

          • Gayguy

            In the case of the teacher, they would be required to keep their personal opinions out of the classroom and out of any dealings with parents, as they must do now. So, no change.

            A businessperson does not have to do business with anyone, or give a reason why they want to do or not do business with someone. But I can tell you this, I have know an AMAZINGLY homophobic businessperson who has done business with homosexuals because there was money involved.

            So if a teacher injected their personal views into the classroom or mistreated a gay parent I would expect them to be dealt with as they are now if they inject their personal opinions into the class or mistreat parent. And as for a business person, unless they stand up and scream “Get out of my building you disgusting filthy perverts” I would expect nothing to happen to them. Despite their views being based in hate and immoral thoughts.

          • berenddeboer

            So a teacher would now have to teach that all relationships are equal? No morals involved? That’s not a change that has any impact on kids whatsoever? No freedom of conscience for this teacher?

            And on business: I really, really cannot understand how people could claim, in face of the overwhelming evidence of countries that have introduced same-sex marriage, that nothing will happen to anyone. This whole charade is to eradicate the thought of any moral difference, and the cases of businesses having to defend themselves in court is simply too long to list here. Here just the latest example: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Richland-florist-headed-to-court-over-gay-marriage-4424249.php

          • berenddeboer

            So the state gives us everything? Scary. Very very very scary. The state gives us life, and administers death I suppose.

    • Goldie

      berbeddeboer wrote: “In all those countries marriage rates did drop significantly”.

      Marriage rates were dropping — and cohabitation, divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates began rising — long before any countries recognised same-sex marriages.

      Massachusetts endorsed gay marriage in May 2004 – the state saw a 16 percent increase in marriage. In the years that followed, the marriage rate normalized but remained higher than it was in the years preceding the legalization. The other four US states that have legalized gay marriage, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, that have done it more recently have also seen a temporary jump in marriage followed by a return to virtually the same marriage rates as before gay marriage became legal. In each of the five states, divorce rates following legalization have been lower on average than the years preceding it, even as the national divorce rate grew.

      In contrast, states which have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage have had much greater falls in rates of mariages and increasing rates of divorce and children out of marriage.

      • berenddeboer

        I’m betting you can’t give me the statistics.

          • berenddeboer

            As I thought. One bird makes a summer! I would use data from countries which have abolished civil marriage for a bit longer if I wanted to start talking about trends.

          • Matthew 7:3-5, before you criticise other people’s stats how about showing some causative evidence for your claims?

          • berenddeboer

            Richard, here some stats from The Netherlands: women who were unmarried when they got their 2nd child: 9% in 2002 (the year same sex marriage was introduced). 10 years later it doubled to 18%. So what is your evidence that this change will be good for marriage?

          • Goldie’s come up with such stats. Anyway your assertions are based on an assumption that marriage is a positive end in itself. As you’ve implied earlier (that you won’t get officially married because of gay marriage) marriage doesn’t actually tell you whether people are better or worse off.

          • berenddeboer

            You don’t think kids deserve a father and a mother? You don’t think the abundant statistics that kids do factors better with their married biological mother and father than with something sinful man experiments with?

          • Gayguy

            All scientific and social studies have PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT that kids do just fine with same sex parents. There is no difference between being raise in a hetro or a homo home. They key factor to a happy child was that they were loved and looked after by their parents.

          • berenddeboer

            The exact opposite is the case. But when did you guys and your culture care about kids? They can be murdered in the womb, and know they can be experiment upon and be deprived of both a father and a mother.

        • Goldie

          Sure I can: http://www.cdc.gov for data tables on cohabitation, marriage, divorce and remarriage.

          How about berenddeboer provides the stats to back his claim?

  • Well done Maurice – you are even higher in my estimation.

  • Andrei

    What the hell is “libertarian” about extending GOVERNMENT into human relationships where it doesn’t exist now and doesn’t need to?

    This actually shows how vapid the gay “marriage” proponents are, they use words in ways that are diametrically opposite to what they actually mean

    • Good point Andrei. The govt should get out of the way and let people call their relationship whatever they want.

  • I am very much a “north of the Bombay Hills” kinda guy who thinks (correctly, of course) anyone south of there is an ignorant hillbilly, and only the best people reside in Auckland.

    All the anti gay marriage palarva is just hillbilly cage rattling – apparitions in Timaru drooling in their unsophisticated ignorance.

    We Aucklanders, however, are very supportive of gay marriage and realise – being more intelligent than our hillbilly compatriots – that it is all a fuss about nothing.
    I suspect Maurice was being polite with his 50/50 claim – in reality it was more like 95/5 in favour.

    • Dumrse

      If you are that in love with Akl and therefore Len, then you deserve to be a c.nt just like him.

      • Auckland has nothing to do with Len; Len and the council are rubber stamps with no power or authority.

        • Dumrse

          So, who is the wizard that keeps putting your rates up ?
          JAFA.

          • Rodger T

            Some cunt.

        • Dumrse

          Are you there JAFA……… Who is the wizard ?

    • Gazzaw

      Don’t set yourself up to speak on behalf of the majority of Aucklanders MK. More like just Grey Lynn & Ponsonby.

      • So if we went door to door in, say, Glenfield it would gobsmack you – absolutely astound you to find most people in favour of gay marriage and unable to see what the fuss is about?

        That Glenfield is not a hotbed of hysterical people obsessed with sodomy?

        That Glenfield is not full of hysterical people terrified John Key will burst through the door at any moment to steal their teenage son and hand him over to be the legally adopted sexual plaything of two soon to be married gay men?

        (I use Glenfield, but you could substitute it for Milford, Onehunga, Hillborough, New Lynn, Mission Bay, Ranui, Panmure, Mt Wellington etc etc etc)

        • LesleyNZ

          So you have been door to door?

          • Gazzaw

            MK is happy to allow his MP to make that choice on his behalf Lesley.

          • Yes I always find Judith Collins a most capable MP in all matters (and I suggest you try and tell her in person – to her face – how wrong she is to support gay marriage next Wednesday and see what happens haha!)

          • Gazzaw

            I have already told her MK. We agree to disagree on this particular point. We agree on pretty much everything else that she stands for. So that’s what happened when we spoke fact to face. Happy now?

          • Gayguy

            If you are not happy to allow MPs to make this decisions then I guess you are all for a referendum on the sale of SOEs.

          • Dumrse

            We had a referendum it was called a general election and.

          • Gayguy

            And yet all polls to date show most kiwis against the sales.

          • unsol

            Yes we did and it was resultant from the poorest voter turn out in years.

            So how can you possible quantify a position that the current ‘vote’ in progress – that is, MPs getting an onslaught of emails & calls from their constituents, is any less democratic?

            Guarantees many more non election & subsequently referendum voters have been in touch with their MPs.

            Especially Maori & Pacific Islanders whose MPs often play a big part in their communities…..people who are predominantly against ME.

          • Gazzaw

            We had a binding referendum last November gayguy and the partial sale of SOEs was approved. Gay marriage was not declared on the Nats manifesto in that referendum and it has not been voted on democratically.

          • Gayguy

            So I guess that means you are opposed to charter schools seeing as they were never mentioned during the whole election and now we are being forced to have them.

            And most people oppose SOE sales. I know many Nat voters, and most of them really believed Key would not go through with it. National does not have the support for the SOE sales that you and they pretend.

          • Gazzaw

            So that’s why the Nats are so far ahead in the polls is it gayguy?

          • Gayguy

            And that is why they will lose. Because people like you do not understand NZ politics.

            It is not about individual parties, it is about blocks, and the left has almost enough support to knock the right out of office. And given the rights performance this year, they are making it a lot easier for the left to become the government.

        • parorchestia

          Well let’s have a referendum and find out.

          • I have written a piece in the general debate section saying how I am in favour of a referendum

    • Mediaan

      That’s great, we’ll tell the lawmakers to just confine the change to Auckland, then…

  • berenddeboer

    This just in: The words “bride” and “bridegroom” will disappear from official marriage forms if Parliament votes, as expected, on Wednesday to legalise same-sex marriages. The bill would also replace the words “husband” and “wife” in 14 other acts with gender-neutral terms including “spouse”, “married couple” and “any two people (of any sex) who are married”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877294

    Let’s vote to take the words husband and wife, bride and bridegroom out of our language!

    But it’ll have no impact on our society. Yeah right.

    • Gayguy

      What rubbish.

      • Gazzaw

        A stunning argument GG.

        • Gayguy

          Nothing more needed to be said.

  • LesleyNZ

    So what? Today’s NZ Herald story is “what” Maurice.
    New marriage form: No more ‘brides’, ‘grooms’ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877294Maurice you don’t know what is right. My relations in your electorate will not vote for you as they have done in past – or give National their party vote. If the electorate is split 50/50 – then WE must decide by way of a referendum. That is what is right Maurice. Your libertarian views are your own – not mine. You have decided to change the definition of marriage because you feel sorry for homosexuals because they say they have been “left out” and are not equal and whatever they get up to is behind closed doors? Civil Union was supposed to answer to equality but that was not the plan of those who supported Civil Union. Get the people used to the idea of same-sex union and then when they are used to it – marriage is the next step. A very clever plan that has been adopted worldwide. I never ever thought that National Party members or the National Party would become so liberal. You have no right or mandate to give the green light to gay marriage – you do have the green light to vote for a referendum on gay marriage to be held at the next election. William Wilberforce said it clearly. ” No matter how loud you shout, you will not drown out the voice of the people!” Lord Tarleton replied in an arrogant manner with, “People?”. Maurice, you are being a Lord Tarleton. We the people also have an opinion on gay marriage which we think is right. Only a public referendum will decide who is right. Helen Clark would not listen to the people.

    • Dumrse

      Agreed. If its that close in his electorate (50/50) then fuck the polies, we need to decide.

      • Gayguy

        Have either of you gotten out there and gotten the numbers to force a referendum on the issue?

        • Dumrse

          It’s easy to be smug about it.

          • Gayguy

            In other words no you have not.

            You all claim to be so horrified by this change yet none of you have the conviction to actually force a referendum. It has been done in regards to the SOE sales, yet not one of you who oppose Marriage Equality could be bothered to get up and do something,

    • unsol

      I think you have missed two major points Lesley. But kudos for keeping your faith out of it.

      There was no referendum that gave a mandate for the State to take over marriage so there is no need to expect one now.

      Further, everyone is already casting their vote via the various polls and/or emailing or calling their local MP.

      All MPs prioritise 1 thing & 1 thing only – their popularity with their electorate. If they decide, upon receiving thousands of emails etc from both sides, to vote in favour based on that & their own values then that is democracy at work – the people have spoken; the MPs are listening & they will decide accordingly.

      So all these calls for a referendum is just stone walling – the reality is having one will not give you the outcome you desire as the majority, even if only by a margin, are against you.

  • cows4me

    The trouble is Maurice you arrogant turd is that you can have your say hundreds of thousands can’t. Oh but I forgot you are all knowing, all wise and you no best, tosser.

    • Gayguy

      Clearly you do not understand how representative democracy works.

  • LesleyNZ

    So Maurice it is a 50/50 split in your electorate. If you were true to your belief in the principals of democracy and truly represented your constituents, you would abstain from voting at the 3rd reading of the gay marriage amendment bill. You say “In the mid 1980s, people claimed the same thing of the homosexual law reform.” I remember George Gair (who was our MP at the time) say to us that the 1980’s homosexual law reform act would not ever lead to homosexual marriage. He was wrong. Fast forward 30 years………….

    • A|random|reader

      That’s a pretty stupid position.

      The National party didn’t even get 50% of the MMP party vote. Does that mean that MPs should decline from voting on any Government business that is put before them??

      • LesleyNZ

        Why is it stupid? Are we “the people” too stupid to have an opinon? Depends on what your constituency says and the issue. This is not a business vote – this is supposed to be a conscience vote – but it is not as it is now called a personal vote. There needs to be far more engagement with the electorate. Mind you List MP’s have it very easy…..

        • Gayguy

          Have you gone out and gotten the numbers to force a referendum on this?

          Or have you just visited blogs and bitched about it?

          • LesleyNZ

            Why should I have to force a referendum – our MPs can force a referendum on gay marriage. Talk about visiting blogs and bitching – look in the mirror Gayguy.

          • Gayguy

            Given that I have taken action in the real world to help the passage of this bill, your cute little comment is a bit of a fail on your part.

          • LesleyNZ

            Real world?

          • unsol

            Put the claws away Lesley – he was out of line saying you have been bitching, but he makes a fair point re the real world. In fact I would argue that he lives in a far more real world than you given you are mostly likely someone who mixes only with people who are likely to share your views (Church & so forth).

            And nice side-stepping too; you are asking for more engagement with the electorate yet have not quantified your assumption that a referendum would equate to more participation from constituents than what they already do via email, phone calls & visits….especially where Maori & Pacific Islanders are concerned who often have the lowest election turnout than any other group.

          • LesleyNZ

            unsol – I mix with many different sorts – not just church going folk. In fact – what is the real world? Is the gay world the real world? A referendum is more thorough and more reflective of opinion than sending an MP emails, phone calls etc. You should know that.

          • unsol

            I very much doubt that Lesley.

            And re referendums you can’t possibly substantiate that as fact, especially when you have elections like last year that saw the lowest turn out on years; voting requires far more effort than many are prepared to make. Especially in places like South Auckland. Yet I bet many make contact with their MP – MPs who make it their business to appeal to the nature of those communities & who will most likely vote no on Wednesday because of it. Such as the Labour & NZ First ones we saw on the news & on here a while back.

            How is this any less democratic?

            It is not.

          • Gayguy

            You know the world outside of the internet.

            Try it sometime.

          • LesleyNZ

            You mean your gay real world?

          • LesleyNZ

            Didn’t the Greens use parliamentary money to pay those who went out and got the numbers/signatures for the assets petition for a referendum?

      • Randomreader – Lesley is 100% against gay marriage so will trot out any old rubbish to make it fit her personal opinion. Just ignore her – on Wednesday she and her ilk lose and lose big hahahaha

        • starboard

          “on Wednesday she and her ilk lose and lose big hahahaha”

          Its just the beginning fool…

        • LesleyNZ

          Do you feel better now Minny Kiwi? Yes I am 100% against gay marriage just like you are 100% for it. There will some winners who may well end up being losers. Bit like the pot calling the kettle black when you say ” Lesley is 100% against gay marriage so will trot out any old rubbish to make it fit her personal opinion.” What are you? So you think it is rubbish to have a referendum because it doesn’t suit your personal opinion?

          • If you care to go to the general debate section you will see I have written a piece on a referendum and stating I am in favour of one.

          • Dumrse

            “…an excellent, well researched…” In your opinion perhaps.

          • LesleyNZ

            I read it – excellent? That is debatable.

          • cows4me

            Full of shit.

  • starboard

    Referendum is the only answer for this issue, you arrogant shit Williamson

    • Gayguy

      Then we must have a referendum about every single law that is passed.

      No exceptions.

      • starboard

        sure…if its going to change the structure of a society like this revolting step backwards, I agree. NO TO SSM…get it through your head.

        • Gayguy

          Oh no, every single thing. All laws, everything must be on a referendum basis because the MPs that we elected in in our representative democracy cannot vote for how every person in their electorate feels.

          Also, others in the community will be more educated than some MPs on various topics, so there for are more qualified to make the decision.

          Oh and one question, what are you going to do on Wednesday when Marriage Equality is passed into law?

          • starboard

            It will be nationals downfall. We have long memories and when they come a knockin on my door at election time , I and thousands of others will be telling them how badly they fucked up and welcome to the unemployment line. You dirty perverts will not win in the end. You have lied and cheated, misinformed and conned …you will answer to a higher power.

          • Rodger T

            LoL SB,when you have to resort to empty threats of your invisible sky monkey taking retribution ,even you must understand you have lost the argument.

          • Gayguy

            Kiwis do not have long memories when it comes to politics. If that was true neither Labour or National would have EVER gotten back into power given some of the shit they have pulled.

            And please tell me specifically what lies have been told in support of marriage equality.

            And as for answering to God, given your behavior, you have more to worry about than I ever will.

          • starboard

            You know..the worst thing about you is that you are a school teacher and you have access to our young peoples minds..you are able to warp, distort and corrupt them with your bent and twisted ways. Its appalling, you should be locked up.

          • Dumrse

            Then the number of queer gay guys will halve as two will become one.

  • LesleyNZ

    The fact that reference to and the words bride and bridegroom and husband and wife are most likely to be obliterated from marriage forms shows that the gay marriage/amendment bill is already affecting the status and meaning of marriage and it hasn’t gone through yet. You might not care Maurice and say “so what”, but a lot of us voters do care: {The words “bride” and “bridegroom” will disappear from official marriage forms if Parliament votes, as expected, on Wednesday to legalise same-sex marriages. A departmental briefing paper to the select committee that considered the bill said marriage forms would have to be changed if it passed.”This includes, for example, changing the headings on the notice-of-intended-marriage form to allow for parties of the same sex (i.e. removing headings of bride and bridegroom),” the paper said. The bill would also replace the words “husband” and “wife” in 14 other acts with gender-neutral terms including “spouse”, “married couple” and “any two people (of any sex) who are married”. Internal Affairs spokesman Michael Mead said the department was waiting “for the outcome of the legislative process” before deciding on revised wording for the forms……… }

    New marriage form: No more ‘brides’, ‘grooms’ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877294

  • parorchestia

    Silly me. I thought that family was for the protection of family, not for the gratification of a couple. Civil Unions existed for that – a neat solution. No homosexual was prevented from marrying in the past. Many did and had families, and it worked out OK provided the spouse agreed. So it isn’t a matter of equality; it is a matter of the majority of the people being dragged into the unknown. It may work out OK, but we simply don’t know what the long term effects will be.
    In any case, it is a matter for the voters to decide, and not the w-nk-rs who make up parliament.

  • Hazards001

    “In the mid 1980s, people claimed the same thing of the homosexual law reform.
    At that time some of the most ghastly outcomes were prophesied.
    Fortunately, none of those outrageous consequences came to pass.”

    Well…apart from the feminisation of men, the proliferation of queers in politics, the undermining of boys educations and the general proliferation of slack jawed limp wristed wannabe men that think a job as a data entry clerk or as someones bitch is a real job if it involves a computer.

    Nope..can’t think of a thing that’s changed since the homo laws came in.

    • Right. Lack of male teachers in primary school is due to homosexual law reform.

      That’s a very long bow you’re drawing there.

      • Hazards001

        “Right. Lack of male teachers in primary school is due to homosexual law reform.

        That’s a very long bow you’re drawing there.”

        Lets try this again as the last reply seems to have got lost in the mail…Where exactly do I refer to male teachers in primary school or any other kind of school? Do try to keep up Pete..if the analogy went over you’re sycophant head then fair enough..ask for a clarification but don’t try to put words in my mouth to suit your agenda.

        Ta.

        • “the undermining of boys educations”

          • Hazards001

            Has what to do with male school teachers archer?

            Has a lot to do with fucking left wing homos but mind you..HC and HS in particular.

    • Gayguy

      Pure nonsense. The lack of males in education as NOTHING to do with the Homosexual Reform Act. It has to do with the paranoid idiots who accuse any male who wants to teach of being a pedo.

      Your line of reasoning has as much validity as a tinfoil hat wearing nutter conspiracy theory.

      • Hazards001

        Where did I mention male teachers fuckwit?

        • Gayguy

          Look at your previous post.

          Oh and where have I stated I want you to be gay? What is it with you heterosexual men? No one wants you to be gay Haz. It is all in your head.

          • Hazards001

            I know what my previous post said you mentally deficient dyslexic piss poor excuse for a fucking school teacher..so show me where I mentioned male school teachers you one track minded simple fucking twat!

  • J.M

    Williamson is dead wrong. Homosexuality weakens our society. It must not be encouraged.

    • Gayguy

      Proof please.

      • I had a chat with you about a month ago when you took the time to have a short but serious discussion with me, and I really understood, for the first time, where you are coming from in terms of your need for “equality”. And I support you in that aim. I “get it”.

        But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t care that the words “bride” and “bridegroom” may disappear from marriage licences, to be perhaps changed to “spouse”.

        Even though I’m still completely in your corner, I mourn the loss of the idea that the price of equality for you is the loss of a bride and a groom from official state law and/or documentation. It doesn’t sit well with me, and I hope there is going to be someone who can create a more inclusive solution than to make it completely sterile of language that has been completely normal for a long, long time.

        Why do straight couples have to lose something for gay couples to become equal? It was your aim to be equal, not to reduce the concept of marriage to something less than it was before, for any of us.

        • Gayguy

          But you are losing nothing. In a lot of legal documents married couples are referred to as a spouse.

          But answer this, why should gay couples be denied everything so you can keep something that has no impact on you at all?

          • Either you don’t understand or you don’t care. And that saddens me.

            I married my Bride Gayguy, not my spouse. She is my wife, not my spouse. These things matter.

            If you don’t care to protect the heterosexual parts of marriage in your need to attain equality within it, I don’t think you yourself understand the equality debate beyond your own needs.

            Equality attained by taking something away from us isn’t equality my friend.

            As I said above, I hope someone smarter than I can find a way through this.

          • Gayguy

            Yes you married your bride, that does not change, you will still marry your bride in years and decades to come. The Priest will not say “take X to be your spouse” unless that is what you ask for in your vows.

            Also there are no heterosexual parts to marriage. It is a ceremony that joins 2 people who are in love, not a declaration of ones sexuality. Nothing is being taken from you except the nostalgia of the past. And given the treatment that homosexuals have had in this country from many in the heterosexual community, no I am not going to weep if the word spouse is used on official forms.

        • LesleyNZ

          Well said Petal. Totally agree.

          • Gayguy

            No you do not. Petal understands why marriage equality is important to the gay community. You do not.

          • LesleyNZ

            Oh yes I do Gayguy – I know how important marriage equality is to the homosexual community. Marriage equality will make you feel better and will tell the world that engaging in same sex relationships is very normal and acceptable and homosexual marriage will justify, in your eyes – your lifestyle.

          • Gayguy

            Like I said, you have no idea and that post proves it.

          • LesleyNZ

            I agree with what Petal says – but I am not in the same corner.

    • I know some poofs that would smack you around good and proper, i don’t think they are particularly weak…your argument however is exceptionally weak.

      • J.M

        Wrong on both counts. Homosexuality impacts negatively on our demographics and the health (both physical and mental) of those that practice it. Now what people do behind closed doors is up to them, but homosexuality is not something we should encourage.
        As for someone smacking me around, not likely.

32%