Opinion: Gay marriage bill will pass

Print

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:16p.m.

Duncan says he reckons around 70 MPs will vote in favour for the bill when it has its first reading this afternoon (photo: Lloyd Burr)

Duncan says he reckons around 70 MPs will vote in favour for the bill when it has its first reading this afternoon (photo: Lloyd Burr)

Opinion by Political Editor Duncan Garner

By tonight, the bill allowing same-sex marriage will pass its first reading.

It is a historic night for Parliament and for first term MP Louisa Wall, who is showing herself to be an expert organiser, lobbyist and communicator already.

She made a good point to me yesterday; gay New Zealanders can get any other licence in this country except a marriage licence.

So many MPs harp on about equality for all New Zealanders under the law - well here's their chance.

Bill English ran a campaign as National's leader in 2002 called "one law for all" - I bet he votes against this though.

My pick is close to 70 MPs will vote for it tonight. A few may drop off by the final vote. But my pick is it will go all the way.

The majority of the National caucus will vote against it and New Zealand First will most likely abstain - unless they get a referendum inserted in the law. Fat chance.

And isn't it fascinating watching some MPs around Parliament front up on this issue - while others duck and weave.

First, there's the 26-year turnaround of John Banks. From arch critic, homophobe and anti-gay rights campaigner in 1986, to today's version of the libertarian John Banks. Is it the same guy?

In 1986 Banks labelled homosexual law reform "evil" and the passing of the law as a "sad and sickening day." But oh, how the tables have turned.

He's effectively been rolled by his party. They've demanded the conservative becomes libertarian. This guy has even less credibility than he did post the Dotcom saga - if that's possible. He's a joke isn't he?

Banks has only seen the light because his job as the leader of the phone-booth ACT party demands it.

And then there is the true libertarian, Maurice Williamson, who doesn't care if you marry your dog. No wonder ACT wanted him in the party a few years ago.

A huge chunk of National MPs will vote against it.

Nick Smith says a marriage should be between a man and woman and Eric Roy says it's simply not necessary.

The Pacific MPs are getting roasted over this so most will vote no, although Labour's Kris Faafoi will vote yes.

And then there are those who strangely refuse to say which way they are going.

Why?

Why are Clayton Cosgrove and Gerry Brownlee so concerned about talking about this publicly? Is it their St Bede's "values?"

I bet they vote against it.

And then there are the lobbyists.

I just saw an MP who told me he was getting a text or email every minute from lobbyists on either this issue or the drinking age. Parliament is crawling with lobbyists right now. Maybe we should ban them?

Anyway, in a few hours gay marriage will be one step closer.

The bill will be sent to select committee for further consideration.

I say well done to Parliament. It doesn't affect me, but it's important to others. I've argued this in previous columns - but will the sky fall in? No.

Will marriage be undermined? No more than what heterosexuals have done to the institution over the past few hundred years. Get on with it. Pass it. Who cares?

But Louisa Wall's comments stick in my head; why shouldn't homosexual kiwis be able to get a marriage licence like straight people?

They should be able to.

And they soon will.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

28/10/2012 8:13:56 a.m.

MICAHAEL wrote:

you will all find out when the great tribulation for these varys things is the wrath of god on man . do you have the wrath of god on you ? acts 2v38 .

26/09/2012 12:22:08 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Actually, Hohepa, I think you'll find that the Statutory References (Relationships) Act imposed identical fiscal and welfare policy obligations on civilly united couples as they do on married couples, which has been the case since 2005.

It'll certainly benefit our tourism revenue. We could market the country as a matrimonial and honeymoon destination for lesbian and gay couples who might want to marry amidst New Zealand's natural bounty.

21/09/2012 1:22:08 p.m.

Hohepa wrote:

Gay marriage will no doubt be a boost for the tax take. Gay couples have been dodging their share for quite some time. Other fiscal responsibilities and obligations become a very real consideration as well

9/09/2012 2:06:51 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

It should be noted that the Public Discourse is a publication of the Witherspoon Institute, key funders of a recent highly flawed social scientific report that misrepresented mainstream professional opinion about same-sex parenting from pediatrics and developmental psychology.

7/09/2012 11:23:16 a.m.

Concerned for the future of New Zealand wrote:

Please read this! http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065 Change the civil union laws if you must, but leave marriage alone. Those of us who believe that homosexual marriage is wrong will never accept it, though others in society may. Please make the right decisions on this, New Zealand!

3/09/2012 11:48:18 a.m.

duncan garner wrote:

Re Banks:

We gave him the opportunity to explain his about face - he has yet to - he just walked off. I don't consider that acceptable. Elected representatives with such strongly held views that suddenly change their minds need to be held to account. Banks needs to reconcile publicly and explain his position and why he's changed. He may wish to account for his views in 1986 too. Have a read of them.
That is our job to do that. And he has yet to explain his change. I make no apologies for this - yet the apologists for Banks (about three of them) continue to push his case.

3/09/2012 10:08:43 a.m.

Gary wrote:

I just can not understand the narrow minded that say a change in law changes their meaning of marriage or affects their marriage? Marriage is simply a vow to spend the rest of your life with a chosen spouse. To bring up children and to give them the best future possible to continue on the cycle. There is no magic or "God" that has any impact on a marriage. There is only your beliefs and personality that you try to find a best match for. It is in our nature to want to do this but is just about us needing to be in a group called society and looking to be adding value to it so we are accepted and loved within the group. Equality is very important for us to stay healthy and positive whilst maintaining some free will and choice how we live. To impose some narrow view or specific belief and force it onto others is wrong. I suggest that anyone who thinks this will affect their marriage may need to visit a councillor as you obviously have some issues to deal with.

1/09/2012 1:38:06 p.m.

paul wrote:

As Louisa Wall compares a marriage licence to a drivers licence.All that shows is her contempt for the marital status.I have a marriage licence and all i get for that is ability to a doped.And a nagging wife that takes my name.So there is nothing flash about that. O yes and i can get it issued in a Church. Joking aside,Gay marriage is a platform to start the availability for gay couples to adopt a child,and change the law so gay males can adopt a girl. The marriage bill was not 24 hrs old and another private members bill was put up on the adoption issue.WHATS NEXT the mind boggles.

31/08/2012 5:00:54 p.m.

Mike Steinberg wrote:

***He's a joke isn't he? ***

I thought this comment reflected limited thinking and analysis on your part Duncan. David Farrah & Guy McCullum provide a more detailed backstory on Banks' change on this issue.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/08/defending_banksie.html

31/08/2012 2:39:45 p.m.

Xavier Goldie wrote:

Duncan, I find your comments regarding John Banks a bit off. People are entitle to change their positions, and should be applauded for standing up and admitting that they have. I think what John Banks did took a whole lot of chutzpah.