Gay marriage bill likely to pass first reading

Email
Print

Gay marriage vote to be close

3News NZ

A 3 News straw poll of all MPs shows the gay marriage bill is likely to pass its first hurdle

A 3 News straw poll of all MPs shows the gay marriage bill is likely to pass its first hurdle

By Tova O'Brien

New Zealand First party is being intentionally evasive about how its MPs plan to vote on a bill legalising same-sex marriage.

The party wants a referendum held on the issue. But even without its votes, the bill looks likely to pass its first reading.

 

New Zealand First didn't even exist in the last Parliament. Now it holds a crucial share of the vote.

But when it comes to legalising same-sex marriage, party leader Winston Peters says Parliament is not democratic enough to decide.

“We will not be voting for this bill,” says Mr Peters. “We'll be arguing for a referendum.”

But abstain or vote against, he wouldn't say.

“We're not voting for it.”

A 3 News straw poll of all MPs shows the bill is likely to pass its first hurdle.

Forty-four MPs say they'll vote in full favour of the bill, 14 will support it at least through the first reading, six will vote against it, 34 are undecided, 15 didn't respond - and then there are the eight New Zealand First phantom votes.

Prime Minster John Key has reasserted his support for the bill beyond the first reading.

“I haven't heard anything that would stop me voting for it further on,” he says.

But that won't stop many of his MPs voting “no” outright.

National MP Eric Roy says he will not be supporting the bill.

“I'm uncomfortable with the bill at the moment,” says National MP Simon O’Connor.

“What my wife and I have enjoyed over 42 years I don't think anyone of the same sex could enjoy,” says National MP Colin King.

“My faith-based view is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” says National MP Chester Borrows.

National MP Phil Heatley will be voting against the bill as well, for what he says are “personal reasons”.

Then there's the "won't say and walk away" category.

“I'll give due consideration in due course,” says Steven Joyce. When asked his personal views on gay marriage, Mr Joyce walked away from the interview.

“I haven't even thought about it I must confess, sorry,” says National MP Anne Tolley.

This method is also popular with some in the Labour Party.

“I haven't looked at the bill yet,” says Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove. “[I’m] trying to save the people's assets through SOEs.”

The 3 News straw poll shows the bill has the momentum to get through the first reading and possibly further.

However, take the determined voting-against-its, all the undecideds and the New Zealand First factor, and the final vote will be close.

3 News

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

18/09/2012 2:01:51 p.m.

Kathryn Fox :) wrote:

I think that gay marriages should be legalised!
My sister who is only one year older than me is gay and to be honest i dont think she should live in a world where there are people that judge her for the people she falls in love with! Its not her fault and its no ones fault.
Really? Who cares if there was Adam and then Eve or Tiki and then Hine-One. That has nothing to do with the people others fall in love with!

3/08/2012 11:57:57 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Again, incest is illegal in this country, as is polygamy/bigamy. Since the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed in 1986, male homosexuality has not been, nor has lesbianism ever been.

Steven, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, conscience, freedom of worship, assembly and association, but you don't speak for all New Zealanders or even all Christians. And you're wrong- lesbian and gay animals do exist.

3/08/2012 10:50:11 a.m.

Steven wrote:

Homosexual behavior is immoral, and it is not about love as they say it is. Should family members also be allowed to marry because it is an issue of love? Or what about a 13 year old child and their older partner? Or what about polygamy and such. People will give any excuse to continue in their immoral behavior. We have to draw the line somewhere, i draw that line at a man and a woman is the definition of marriage end of story. Gay is just a mockery to the bible and to all religious aspects of life. Animals are created as male and female and they know the boundaries. This is the country's vote not the govt so give the chance to vote.

2/08/2012 4:10:20 p.m.

Liz wrote:

I don't understand why a person would vote against this. I understand marriage as a binding contract of two people who have freely come together to declare their love for eachother. As marriage is a legality and upheld (or dissolved) by a country's government it is the government's duty to ensure that every one of their citizen's is allowed to enter such an institution. A religious institution does not have to allow same-gender couples to have a religious service but it should have no factor or say in a legal matter. By not changing the current legislation the government is discriminating against a sector of its society. Discrimination it has already outlawed in employment law. Sexual orientation is just a small part of who a person is. Would you discriminate against me because of me faith? (Catholic) Or my rugby team? (Highlanders) Or my hair colour? (brown) My gender? (female) Or my tv and book addictions? I would much rather you know me and then judge me than only seeing my sexual orientation (straight but really who cares).

1/08/2012 10:19:27 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

In the United States, liberal ministers of religion were arrested in 2004 because they provided religious same-sex marriage ceremonies for lesbian and gay couples. Perhaps 3 News could cover it in a future 60 Minutes segment?

1/08/2012 9:44:53 a.m.

E R wrote:

This bill should and will pass. Complete lunacy that the Housing Minister feels he can actively discriminate against people due to 'personal reasons'. Colin King demonstrates his continued ignorance and bigotry. Clayton Cosgrove needs to remember he is a Labour List MP and therefore has a moral imperative to vote according to Labour values, including equality.

1/08/2012 9:14:30 a.m.

Gary wrote:

Some of these MPs should educate themselves on the history of marriage! It never started as something between 1 man and 1 woman married in church by a priest, it changed and developed into that over time. The israelites just spoke out verbally to their chosen one but had to be at least 12 years old. Other nations could have two or more wifes. Some nations had to be 30 years old with a partner of the same age and strength to ensure strong off spring. The church only got involved later on just to try and register the marriages. The Romans wanted order and control over everything. It then developed into what we now know as marriage. And now it looks like it will change again. Marriage is a man made tradition driven by the desire to breed and survive. Nature and social circumstances dictate how it changes.

1/08/2012 3:16:53 a.m.

Cylon7 wrote:

I don't see why it's such a problem for everyone, what negative effect is it really going to have? New Zealand is being faced with the opportunity here to stand up for equality, and to miss it now would be incredibly disappointing . . .

1/08/2012 12:34:31 a.m.

Ximen wrote:

John Key will lost my vote in the next election.

1/08/2012 12:23:33 a.m.

Moorhead wrote:

This law is an attack on human rights. Politicians should check their hysteria beforevoting - we know you are as PC as you possibly can be, but you can follow Winston's shrewd and respectful approach if you don't want to get swept away in the deluge of ruined careers this bill will lead to. This erosion of our civil liberties in relation to religious freedom, is an historic moment in the War on Individual Rights. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or an agnostic, removing human rights as significant as the right to religious beliefs will make the removal of other human rights much easier. esides, most actual homosexuals are not in favour of this bill as it will certainly lead to an increase in violence and discrimination against them. Even if the state claims they will protect them, they know that they will be victims of justified rage if this bill becomes law. In the end, there will be even less police catching thieves, child abusers and rapists, as they'll be tied up with enforcing this bigoted law.