I expect the National politicians who are "undecided" to cave over the same-sex marriage vote. Why? Well, John Key is basically telling them they should without overtly telling them through his comments in the media, and they will set themselves up for all sorts of grief if they don't vote the "right way" from the types of people who will boycott a baker because he refuses to make a wedding cake for a "gay marriage".
It's the modern test of morality for political elites to be on the right side of the gay marriage debate. If you are on the wrong side, you will be vilified. What politician wants that, especially if they have no strong moral backbone?
Listening to NewsTalkZB this morning, I noticed that both politicians that Mike Hosking had on with him were almost offended at the idea that such a massive change to a primary social institution should go to referendum. Their consciences were seen to be enough, even though Steven Joyce wasn't really ready at this point to tell any one as to which way his conscience was swinging.
Isn't it interesting how just a few months ago, when Judith Collins was asked by Rainbow Wellington about same-sex marriage, her reply to them was:
And now, here we are, with the vast majority of National MPs undecided on which way they will go, with the PM stating that he will be voting to change marriage from Husband and Wife to Partner and Partner. Not in those explicit terms of course, but I think we need to get more explicit about what this change will actually mean.
Related link : How MPs plan to vote on gay marriage
It's the modern test of morality for political elites to be on the right side of the gay marriage debate. If you are on the wrong side, you will be vilified. What politician wants that, especially if they have no strong moral backbone?
Listening to NewsTalkZB this morning, I noticed that both politicians that Mike Hosking had on with him were almost offended at the idea that such a massive change to a primary social institution should go to referendum. Their consciences were seen to be enough, even though Steven Joyce wasn't really ready at this point to tell any one as to which way his conscience was swinging.
Isn't it interesting how just a few months ago, when Judith Collins was asked by Rainbow Wellington about same-sex marriage, her reply to them was:
The Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage in the current Parliamentary term. As you are aware, there is considerable diversity of opinion on same-sex marriage.
And now, here we are, with the vast majority of National MPs undecided on which way they will go, with the PM stating that he will be voting to change marriage from Husband and Wife to Partner and Partner. Not in those explicit terms of course, but I think we need to get more explicit about what this change will actually mean.
Related link : How MPs plan to vote on gay marriage
A referendum may represent a fair representation of the people, although a popular majority is not necessarily democratic or valid in the conscience sense. That is because marriage between one man and one woman is a traditional value and religious principle, and not a material desire.
ReplyDeleteMost politicians expect to opt for the popular opportunity of their own ambitions but responsible ones may opt for a referendum.
However, the equality of so-called relationships is deeper than what it seems. It thins the psyche of men and the testosterone drive has already shown signs of declining. This is demonstrated by the fate of the All Blacks from the most feared in No 1 to ordinary desperation. It is the socialisation of these relationships or social engineering that triggers the chemical mixture of deterioration. If the testosterone becomes defective, it might result with irreversible consequences.
My advice for Labour and its socialist liberals is to quit playing god. My advice for men is to quit Labour and vote for Winston and Conservatives for the future.
There is not one politician with a backbone in parliament - not one.
ReplyDeleteThe shouting class will get their deviant "marriage" without any real debate.
And it is our kids who will pay the price
What a very sick parliament.This country is run by spineless wimps!!
ReplyDeleteThey all make me ill.Kiwi kids mean nothing to these creepS!!!!
God help NZ, please.....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStart flame wars elsewhere Big Bruv. You are not welcome on this blog, given your declared hatred.
ReplyDeleteLucia, What wouldbe your thought on asking Parliament to stop recognizing marriage at all. Just register civil unions. After all the UK parliament split from the church in 1855 when it allowed divorce. I would be much more comfortable being able to call myself and my children married if this were to occur, without having to clarify, though I can't see it being asked, whether is was trad or ss marriage.
ReplyDeleteBut I think this solution would not be acceptable. Marriage gives a status somehow that is different even from complete equality under the law, different from separating church and state. It's a status that evokes an acceptance of some rule and accountability in life and the public recognition of those values are what is threatened.
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the State not recognising marriage at all is I would be against that. Marriage is a social institution that is being worn away from all sides, and the consequences of doing so are already being seen in the number of emasculated men, with women left to fend for themselves with their fatherless children, so just capitulating is not an option, in my view.
We'll probably lose, but at least we wouldn't have gone down without a fight.