Anti-gay marriage website back tomorrow

Email
Print

Anti-gay marriage website back tomorrow

3News NZ

The anti-gay marriage website was hacked this morning

The anti-gay marriage website was hacked this morning

By Janika ter Ellen

Debate over the bill is heating up with John Key showing support, while a new website opposing it will be back online tomorrow.

The Prime Minister's given his strongest signal yet he'll vote in support of legalising gay marriage all the way through the law-making process.

Family First’s Bob McCroskie launched a website this morning – its message – marriage is between one man and one woman.

But by this afternoon Mr McCroskie had a call from his IT company to say the site had been taken out by hackers.

“They said congratulations Bob, the scale of this attack is unprecedented in New Zealand web history,” Mr McCroskie says.

He was also spammed with abusive email.

But while Mr McCroskie might not be popular with gay marriage supporters, Mr Key's stocks are on the rise after he gave his strongest signal yet he would support the bill all the way through the legislative process.

“If you vote for something the first reading, that's a reasonably important step towards supporting the bill the whole way through.”

Until now, Mr Key has only committed to supporting the bill to its first reading.

And he voted against Civil Unions seven years ago.

“Because of the nature of being Prime Minster, it's slightly different to being a backbench MP, you know I don't have the luxury of waiting a long period of time before I give my opinion on something, and I've clearly signalled I intend to vote for it.”

And the Prime Minister's influence is significant.

In a National caucus mostly made up of politicians opposed to gay marriage, Mr Key's support could force a shift.

But before anything's decided there will be more debate.

And Mr McCroskie plans to fuel it - he'll put up his site up again, tomorrow.

“Hopefully within 24 hours, and it'll be on a web host that can handle that level of, you know, controversy.”

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

7/08/2012 11:47:26 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

What was so moral about homophobe Graham Capill, Rick? He denounced lesbians and gays all the while raping three little girls. One of them was on the verge of suicide before one of them spoke up and he was apprehended and made to pay for his crimes. And what about the Catholic clergy pedophiles who do the same thing while their hierarchy opposes same-sex marriage and parenting? What's so 'moral' about that?

5/08/2012 9:23:27 p.m.

Rick wrote:

You can't have it both ways. You can't allow gay marriage and then try to uphold morals. You have clearly stated that morals are flexible, non binding, and totally arbitrary and subject to change as society 'develops'. Therefore, what stops me from pursuing incest as my prefers lifestyle? Some DNA scare? So what? Who are you to tell me I'm wrong. What if I want to commit crime? Who are you to say my crimes are wrong? You re judging me? You are discriminating against me. I was born this way and am expressing myself. This is serious. You must acknowledge that it is inconsistent to think otherwise. What society says is wrong today may be perfectly acceptable in 50 years time. So why are you not all anarchists? Logic dictates you must be, as this is the only full out working of holding to what you really believe..flexible morals, not being shackled to the old ways of the past, the groaning chains of Chrsitanity holding you back. Well then, that would leave me totally free to do whatever wish. You cannot stop me. Morals are a human construction and nothing more. But you seem you betray yourself in that you want peace, happiness, and love, all without being honest enough to acknowledge that these very things are moral absolutes themselves. But you are winning your war against them, not realizing you are the very ones, along with us, who will cry out for these self same things when your amoral society becomes a reality. Be honest, do you really believe morals are arbitrary and totally flexible, of do you think they are based on something other than mere electrochemical impulses in a human brain. If so, I challenge you to tell me what they are based on and where these morals come from. Otherwise, don't cite 'love' as a reason for apllowing this. We are not as gullible as you think.

3/08/2012 1:51:55 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Careful, Plan, they'll want to ban people with dissociative identity disorder getting married next, on the grounds that's polygamy with multiple personalities...!

3/08/2012 3:58:21 a.m.

THE PLAN wrote:

Sian, Nah, those will still work, Steve can meet my husband, and Jill can say meet my wife. David 2: "I demand tolerance for my intolerance" To say that limiting marriage to heterosexual marriage is either disingenuous or dissociative.

2/08/2012 6:43:07 p.m.

Sian wrote:

Dictionary definition of a husband is a man and a wife is a woman. Are we going to change this? also Mr and Mr and Mrs and Mrs just doesn't make sense!

2/08/2012 2:02:08 p.m.

David 2 wrote:

Fight intolerance with intolerance? Very sound logic there.

2/08/2012 10:32:57 a.m.

THE PLAN wrote:

Now Protect Marriage NZ, the group that desires "heathly debate" has apparently disabled commenting. That can happen when when you are pushing for something so deeply offensive to New Zealand's sense of fairness and egalitarianism.

1/08/2012 12:28:30 a.m.

Moorhead wrote:

If Key doesn't wise up about the nature of his constituency, his career will come an end as abruptly as Jenny Shipley's did the last time National went 'queer'. That time, if I recall, it took National a decade to get a whiff of power again. This can all be swept away with a bit of dismissive humour, or National can hit the trash can and watch as Shearer capitalizes on their greed at pulling a tiny group who probably won't vote National anyway.

31/07/2012 6:32:26 p.m.

Sam wrote:

@Monsell when you don't have the same rights as everyone else then you would understand that this is an important issue.

31/07/2012 4:07:43 p.m.

Monsell wrote:

Where does this all end.Why dont we give everyone what they want.maori there land back,non Maori the right not to have there children speak Te reo,The tibetans there country back from China. wait lets not stop there.A free palestinian state.The world's poor enough food to eat.Its funny that we are caught up in our right to do something yet there are bigger and more important things in this world to consider.