Gay marriage backers optimistic
Tue, 28 Aug 2012 6:12p.m.
By Duncan Garner
The marriage equality bill faces its first crucial vote tomorrow, and the MP behind it says she expects it to pass despite fierce lobbying behind the scenes.
Many MPs have already made clear which way they intend to vote.
The tables have turned for John Banks, who is now leading the libertarian ACT Party.
“I'll be voting for the bill,” he says, “because I am.”
But he didn't want to hang around to chat – probably because 25 years ago he labelled Homosexual Law Reform Act “evil, sad and sickening”.
The Labour MP behind the bill, Louisa Wall, says its first reading is likely to pass tomorrow with more than 60 votes.
“We've got a solid 60 in support, hopefully the undecided will join our team,” she says.
Prime Minister John Key says the majority of his party is voting against it.
“My guess is the majority won't vote for it, but there will be a slightly larger rump that will vote for it than we might otherwise think.”
If the bill passes its first reading as expected, it will then go to a select committee.
But don't expect the bill’s opponents to go away – MPs are being heavily lobbied on this, and that will continue right through to the final vote.
Post a Comment
Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide
(Won't be published)
31/08/2012 2:41:34 p.m.
Craig Young wrote:
To be frank, it is the fundamentalist community that is setting themselves up for disappointment. Are they not aware of the steep decline in Christian religious observance in this country as successive censuses have told us? Oddly enough, it has accelerated more recently- largely at the same time as the emergence of militant fundamentalist political activism in the United States and elsewhere.
30/08/2012 3:44:52 p.m.
" It starts of minimal and then grows."
more irrational fear from folks like yourself?
sorry, but you got nothin'
your arguments were the same used when we gave women the vote, the same used when civil rights were granted to people of color in the US. we've had decades to look at the results of those decisions, and they have made society all the better, no downsides.
your fears are groundless, and feckless.
30/08/2012 12:10:03 a.m.
10 years is not a time frame long enough to judge the affect it will have. It takes time for the affects of actions to come to the surface and show. It starts of minimal and then grows.
So ask yourself why is it important for gay people to be married. I believe it is to feel accepted. To have same rights as other married couples. I understand these feelings and they have every right to feel this way. But changing the law to allow same sex marriage is not going to make this happen. Believers will not allow their faith to be changed. There for not giving gay couples the historic marriage experience. Then being faced with rejection.
It just seems pointless to me. Wanting the tittle of marriage instead of civil union. But not being able to have the traditional marriage. Wanting equality but setting yourself up for rejection.
29/08/2012 1:00:56 p.m.
Indeed, Canada has refused to decriminalise polygamy. In November 2011, the British Columbian Supreme Court's Justice Robert Bauman handed down a 355 page decision which upheld Section 293 of the Candadian Criminal Code, which found that polygamy was characterised by violence against women and child sexual abuse...unlike same-sex marriage.
29/08/2012 9:27:11 a.m.
"But if we allow gay marriage how prepared are we to the effect what this will have on the world in the future."
Say, I know! you could look at countries like Canada that have had legalized marriage equality for over 10 years now.
strangely, the country has not imploded, nor has it lead to people marrying their pets, nor has it lead to an explosion of polygamy.
anything else you want to fearmonger on about?
29/08/2012 8:01:56 a.m.
I have a brother who is gay and I know other people who are gay. I am not against them at all. But if we allow gay marriage how prepared are we to the effect what this will have on the world in the future. Everything we do and allow now changes how the world will be in the future. I am a parent of two girls and I understand that everything I do know will effect how they are as adults in this world in the future.
Marriage was started before Christ and was between a women and man for what purpose? To create life. Something that two men or two women are not able to do. If we allow marriage for gay people then next marriage will be for friendships. Or marriage with children. Years ago when being gay was not so open in the public. If you mentioned debating gay marriage 50 years ago. I am sure you would get a different result than today. Just like today you may think that marriage with children would never happen but who is to say what is acceptable in the future. What we do know matters for the future. I look at the world now and see how wrong the world is becoming. We think we are more advanced but the truth is that we are actually worse off and it will only get worse. As people continue to self satisfy instead of looking at the big picture of how this will affect us in the future. I sure do not want my daughter to marry at 12 yrs old just because she wants to confirm her love for someone.
Gay people want this for equal rights and to feel normal to the world. This is partly emotional and the need to feel accepted. But it will just be another way to feel rejected. As churches refuse to marry them, wedding suppliers and establishments refuse their business. When faced with active Christians. Not because God does not love gay people. Because God loves all of us. But God showed us a way to live, for our own good. The more the world pulls away from how God wants us to live the worse the world becomes.
29/08/2012 12:40:58 a.m.
Barry, unless there have been traditional marriage proponents beaten to death that I don't know about, I don't think calling people out on their bigotry and hate equals abuse. I don't mind people expressing their opinions on this matter, it simply means I know who to avoid and who to support. You have an opinion and you have the freedom to say it. Everyone commenting here has an opinion of their own and the freedom to say it. That does not absolve you or anyone else from any criticism that comes from publishing that opinion. It does not mean that people can't react negatively to your opinion. You have the freedom to say what you want. Just let others have the freedom to marry whom they want, regardless of gender.
28/08/2012 11:11:10 p.m.
"Will people who don't agree with gay marriage still have freedom of speech to say so?"
are you kidding?
first, you people complaining about this say it's a minority wanting to force their views on you, NOW you want to ALSO say that you will be victimized by this tiny minority??
that's some rather pathetic logic there.
you SHOULD feel intimidated. not because you have a different opinion, but because you're an idiot.
28/08/2012 10:43:05 p.m.
The media are all pushing and pushing and PUSHing this relentlessly. They want to make it extremely hard for any politician to vote against it for conscience sake. But if it does go through, then how long before this new "freedom" becomes a stick to bash other citizens over the head with. Will people who don't agree with gay marriage still have freedom of speech to say so? Will organisation be denied funding for social welfare programmes unless they speak the right weasel-words to the government? Will people find themselves being denied jobs and scholarships unless they profess to love and accept this new so-called reality? Already people are afraid to speak out because of the rising tide of abuse being levelled at those who hold to traditional marriage -certainly I am feeling intimidated by it all. The level of abuse I read from the pro-gay side far far exceeds what I see from the traditional-marriage side.
28/08/2012 10:24:19 p.m.
"there's not one politician with the balls to say no to this minority group."
so it will pass unanimously then.
if all the politicians are gay, then it's not a minority group, is it?
"if someone wants to marry their dog let them."
you know what stops that? consent. Last I checked, a dog would not be able to give legal consent. Show me a talking dog, and then we can debate it.
it's quite simple, but somehow the idiots who create these stupid slippery slope arguments can't even reason past the first step.
seriously people, when your argument boils down to WHAT ABOUT THE HORROR OF PET LOVE!! you really should step back and reexamine your grip on reality.
Viewers overwhelming voted yes to decriminalising soft drugs during TV3's nation...
A petition boasting more than 37,000 signatures against the use of animal testin...
A report by New Zealand's police watchdog into the Urewera terror raids has foun...
Calls are growing for the Auckland Council to rethink its plans for more intensi...
A Work and Income employee has emailed the private details of 34 beneficiaries t...
Copyright © 2013 MediaWorks TV. All Rights Reserved.