Marriage equality on the horizon
SNPA © Enlarge photo
The Labour Lone Wolf
Su'a William Sio, Labour MP for Mangere, has called for fellow party member Lousia Wall’s gay marriage bill to be withdrawn from parliamentary consideration as it would alienate seemingly social-conservative (and largely religious) Pacific Island portions of Labour electorates.
It’s rather blatant politicking from Mr Sio, as he’s desperate to protect his voting base come the next election, but his other reasons ring rather true, namely that "there are more weightier and more pressing issues like…the weakening economy and lack of jobs.”
It would be an intellectual surrender to abandon a conscience vote on the back of religious pressure, as Stone Age reasoning holds no place in a modern and pluralistic society (hear that Bob McCroskie?).
It’s a matter of priorities, and where we, as a nation, wish to place our emphasis.
Will it be on creating jobs and sending our economy back in to the black? Or will we waste parliamentary time on something that really ought to wait?
I know this argument might be thoroughly unpopular in the liberal circles to which I belong, but we have Civil Unions for the time being (symbolic though they are). Marriage rights can wait while the growing disparity between rich and poor is addressed.
Capturing a Niche Market
In other related news, a corporate propaganda war is being raged in the US at the moment, parading as allegiance to the gay rights cause.
Because I’m not a Bible-bashing redneck who lives in the South, I had no idea what Chick-Fil-A was until newspapers told me it’s yet another analogous American fast-food outlet who officially sided against marriage equality. It prompted outrage from proponents of the movement, and tired justification from its enemies, yet it’s only the latest in a string of businesses coming down on either side of the fence.
Witness Urban Outfitters, WalMart, Kraft Foods, and now Starbucks taking a stance either way, but it seems to me less tied to opinions of human rights than a damn fine business oppourtunity.
When Chick-Fil-A took their side in the debate, Mike Huckabee (Fox News hawk) called for solidarity with the junk food outlet, leading to conservatives the country over lining up to vote with their pocketbooks.
Starbucks has faced this, too, though in the opposite direction. Customers have been queuing in increasing numbers to outweigh a boycott from conservative pundits.
If this isn’t sneaky dealing, and servicing a temporary niche market, then I don’t know what is.- < Previous
- Next >
Latest
- 9:11 am Denniston mine will 'rip heart out' of land
- 9:03 am Blues, Labour leader, provide school breakfast
- 9:02 am Elderly Napier woman fused to couch
- 9:00 am Ball rolling for Welly runway extension
- 8:57 am Public backs West Coast mine: Smith
- 8:57 am Rest of country should leave Buller be
- 8:50 am One injured in Auckland ferry collision
- 8:46 am Ferry and water taxi collide in Auckland Harbour
- 8:45 am Silver lining for grieving Ford fans
- 8:40 am Water taxi, ferry, collide on Waitemata Harbour
Opinion
-
Ken Ring
May 14, 11:46 amWhy climate is unlikely to be changingHumans walk at about three miles an hour, and run at around five. It is the shape and musculature of the human body that determines this. We are nei...
-
James Robins
May 15, 2:33 pmAP, DOJ, GCSBI've joined Twitter. Follow me here: @James_ARobins“Freedom of the Press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose” – G...
-
On the radar
May 22, 9:08 amBase jumper escapes death after parachute failsA base jumper who has performed more than 180 successful jumps is lucky to be alive.Matthew Gough's latest conquest would have been a 1,000 foot clif...
51 Comments
When I was in the Air Force in the 1970s we had a lot of poms who had moved over here from the RAF. At that time the UK had just made homosexuality legal and the standing joke amongst the new arrivals was that had to leave before it became compulsory. But, and this is the point, IT WAS A JOKE. There is no proposal to force you to marry someone of your own sex! I am happily married to someone of the opposite sex and I wouldn't have it any other way. But if a gay couple wish to marry, how on earth does that affect me? And if your religion does not agree with it, surely it still doesn't become your business. In the unlikely event that there is a god, then the reckoning will be between Him/Her and the couple concerned.
ReplyA horse is not a consenting adult last I checked...that is a tired argument. And of course we will not be able to marry our brother, there are genetic implications. And as for bible verses, if we are to live by them, if your wife, sister, mother or daughter were not virgins when they were married we could stone them to death. Why do christians pick and choose their verses? Christians are way too arrogant. They assume we all believe in their bible and god so we have to live by their rules.
ReplyFor those people who have cited Biblical arguments, are you also seeking to outlaw the eating of oysters and the wearing of mixed fibre clothing? Do you want to return marriage to the Biblical tradition of a man and two or more wives? New Zealand law is for all New Zealanders whether they are Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish or Wiccan or pagan or atheist. New Zealand is not governed on a religious basis. Civil and human rights arguments are more relevant to our laws than narrow interpretations of Biblical verses.
ReplyOn the economic front, countries and states overseas which have passed marriage equality into law have improved their economic performance. There has also been an increase in marriage stability for different sex couples, maybe because if everyone can get married then more people support the idea. People spend more money on a marriage than a civil union too. Places that have inclusive laws also tend to attract more creative and innovative workers and businesses. Liberal straight people are happier with equal laws as well as LGBT people. On a human rights base? Pass the Bill!
ReplyThis is a case of those in the majority deciding for those in the minority never mind those so called rights supposedly enshrined in the constitution.
Reply