Opinion: Why Key backs same-sex marriage

Print

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 2:42p.m.

Duncan says if there are some MPs wavering on this, Key's vote might just bring them over

Duncan says if there are some MPs wavering on this, Key's vote might just bring them over

Opinion by Political Editor Duncan Garner

John Key has given his crucial nod to gay marriage, and his support could be vital in seeing this private members bill get passed into law.

Key was originally cautious on the bill last week - saying he would vote for it to the first reading but would then seek the views of his electorate.

But he's now said he's unlikely to change his mind over the course of the debate to allow same-sex couples to marry. That's the green light from the Prime Minister in my view.

And if there are some MPs wavering on this - especially in his caucus, then this might just bring them over.

Key's support is all about showing he's a modern, adaptable and flexible leader. He has seen Obama's support for it in the US. Don't under-estimate that.

To be against it would render Key's appearances at the Big Gay Out and the like redundant and pure show-boating. He couldn't go back and hug the boys in Grey Lynn if he voted against this.

And anyway - who on earth wants to be on the same side as Conservative Party leader Colin Craig? But expect Craig to use this as a wedge between what his lot stands for and what Key stands for.

Amongst the churchy vote - I can't see how Craig can lose. It's perfect timing for him. He now has another issue to campaign on.

But his comments that homosexuality is a choice, and he could choose to be gay if he wanted, is bizarre. Maybe we should force him onto a reality TV show - Gay for the week - and see if he copes. Imagine what could be done to him?

So Key has spoken, even if his position is confusing to say the least.

Remember Key voted against civil unions because his electorate was apparently opposed, now he's lining up to vote for gay marriage. So he's against civil unions but pro gay marriage. I don't understand it.

I'll put it down to timing, polling and politics.

I actually suspect the Prime Minister isn't strongly for or against gay marriage at all.

For him, this is now politics. Like so many of the rest of us I suspect - he doesn't really care - it won't affect him, his marriage, his wife or his life. So why waste too much more time on it?

That's my view really. I'll go on record here and now and say I have no problem with it. It's probably part of us growing up as a society. We had the Homosexual Law Reform bill in the 80s, civil unions 8 years ago - and surely this is what flows from that.

I say let the thing pass and allow gay New Zealanders to put up with what the rest of us have been putting up with centuries - marriage.

But let's go further and strengthen the law for homosexuals. If the gays want to get married, why don't we ban them from getting divorced!

And to those people who say this undermines the institution of marriage and bringing up children - I say what a complete load of rubbish. The heterosexuals have been doing that for centuries.

Around 21,000 kiwis got married in 2010 but almost 9000 got divorced. It's no more successful than anything else we try really. Actually, of all the New Zealanders who married in 1985, 33 percent - or 1 in 3 - had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary - 25 years.

It's hardly an upstanding, august institution we should all look up to. And I'm married.

But is there a massive public demand for gay marriage? No, not really.

Actually in 2010 only 200 same-sex couples sought a civil union. Two hundred! Not many is it?

In all, just 1851 civil unions have taken place in New Zealand since 26 April 2005.

The sky hasn't fallen in. We all still wake up in the morning. Society is no more or less evil.

I have gay friends. They are hugely fun people. They are normal too. They hold down mundane jobs. They pay tax. And they are fantastic parents. If they want to get married, I say let them suffer like the rest of us. I doubt they will walk up the aisle though.

I have a gay uncle - he is a superb, loving and caring man - who has been in our lives since we were born, and will till the day he dies. We're great mates. If he wants to marry - why should we stand in the way? I sense he has no interest in it to be honest.

So I'm on record. It doesn't scare me. Pass the bill - but let's not waste too much time over it - as it doesn't actually affect too many people. But for those it does affect - it actually matters. It's about equal human rights under law.

This debate will give plenty of oxygen to the religious bishops who reside in cult heaven, if you know what I mean. So let's get on with it.

If the gays want to get married and enjoy the same equal human rights as the straights - then Parliament should do the right thing.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

27/08/2012 3:39:23 a.m.

Joronda wrote:

The first child born on Earth was named Cain and he murdered his brother Able in a fit of jealousy, then later incestuously married his sister. Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the apple off the Tree of Knowledge.

He who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Let gay people not be excluded from society as freaks, because all children are born equal in the eyes of God who made them.

26/08/2012 9:10:18 p.m.

carla888 wrote:

Of course only 200 gays chose civil unions last year. Its not bloody marriage. Its a complete shame and a waste of time. If I and my partner wanted to get married at the moment, I would head overseas before becoming 'civil unioned'. What the hell is that anyway?

1/08/2012 1:41:15 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

I personally don't care what homophobes do within their churches, religion is a private matter of personal belief. Must they behave so reprehensibly in public, though?

1/08/2012 11:49:35 a.m.

Ernst wrote:

I personally don't care what homosexuals do it's their choice. I just don't want to hear anything about them then I won't be imagining what they actually do with each other.

1/08/2012 9:24:16 a.m.

Gary wrote:

Some need to educate themselves on the history of marriage and religion! 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 wife's. 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.

31/07/2012 6:52:21 p.m.

Wills wrote:

Yep let gays marry - let them suffer like the rest of us hehehe. Seriously though it's appalling that this nasty bigoted minority are using the same excuses that people used to try and prevent inter-racial marriage. How dumb are these people going to look in 40 years?

31/07/2012 12:53:49 p.m.

Siena wrote:

John Key may have gained the gay vote and I have never voted for him anyway. RUZ wote "...Marriage is a civil institution and does not need religion to give it legitimacy". Fair enough. As long as gays who want to tie the same knot, tie it in a civil institution and not in any religious sacred kainga (Its only for our Almighty Father's Lambs'), called Men and Wombmen. The latter, Wombmen are needed for mankind to exist as same-sex couples cannot have sex to make a baby together, the Au Natural Way...What springs to my mind is, pumping gas into my car's tank except my car has more grunt in him than my ex-partner of 10 years ever had...I am still not tempted to turn to another female...ever. Amen and Awombmen forever

31/07/2012 11:17:53 a.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Thank you, Duncan. It's good to hear your opinion on this.

As for the Prime Minister, it's fascinating to read the diatribes about his conversion to marriage equality. I suspect the 3 News and other news websites are the subjects of a fundamentalist contributor blitz at present, but they're not doing themselves any favours.

31/07/2012 10:53:39 a.m.

Max wrote:

If he gets divorced,Key that is,, he should marry Gerry Brownlee

31/07/2012 9:17:29 a.m.

frank wrote:

John Key may have gained the gay vote but he has lost mine