“Traditional marriage” has changed dramatically

“Traditional marriage” has changed significantly over the ages. From Changing Notions of Traditional Marriage:

But here’s the problem: The notion of traditional marriage that these conservatives are so vigorously defending is not historically accurate. Pundit Bill Kristol recently fell into this trap when he complained that supporters of marriage equality want to overthrow “thousands of years of history and what the great religions teach” about marriage.

In actuality, traditional marriage — as it existed centuries ago — is not worth defending.

Let’s start with concubines, also known as mistresses, who were owned by husbands in ancient cultures and are mentioned without disapproval throughout the Hebrew Bible. Then there’s the practice of polygamy, which was the norm in biblical times. Back then, tradition forced rape victims to marry their rapist. Tradition also called for victorious soldiers to make female war prisoners their wives and concubines.

In the Middle Ages, marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons, and girls could be forced to marry when they were as young as 12 years old. British Common Law held a man to be “lord and master” of his wife who was subject to “domestic chastisement.” Wife beating was legal and common in England until the late 1800s.

In colonial America, wife beating was illegal, but marriage equaled patriarchy. A wife had no legal rights or existence apart from her husband. Any money or property she inherited belonged to him. Their children were his as well. Wife abuse was not uncommon.

n 1864 a North Carolina court heard the case of a woman abused by her husband because she had called him names. The court ruled that:

“A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain.”

That is not dissimilar to New Zealand – that sort of court attitude lingered through most of last century, and some attitudes like it linger on still amongst a minority.

It wasn’t until the 20th century, when women fought for and won the right to vote, to sign contracts on their own, to obtain financial credit, to have access to contraception and more, that these earlier notions of traditional marriage began to crumble, and something resembling the institution we recognize today began to emerge.

But each of the advances for women’s equality was fought by forces that considered them an invasion of the sacred private realm of the home and an assault on the family. Even so, these advances became part of law and culture and are now the norm. In fact, they are embedded in the institution that conservatives are now so fiercely defending.

Marriage has always been dynamic. For the most part, its evolution has been positive. Marriage today is far more mutually supportive, egalitarian and secure for children than it was centuries ago. Take heart, conservatives. The institution of marriage does change and adapt over the years, and that is what makes it endure.

We can’t be sure what the effects of gay marriage will have but if the history of marriage evolution is anything to go by most people will accept as normal what not long ago seemed controversial.

Asset petition good, smacking and marriage petition bad

Green MP Kevin Hague supports the asset sales petition/referendum but opposes having a referendum on the marriage equality bill. Do Greens think that democratic processes can be used selectively to suit their preferences?

Asset Bill

The Green and Labour parties are currently pushing the anti asset sale petition/CIR for all it’s worth (actually for all the taxpayers are worth, they’re using our money, but that’s another story).

MPs from both parties are demanding that the asset share floats are halted until the results of the referendum are known, and then the Government should scrap the share floats as opponents are confident the referendum result will be favourable to their argument (and to their politicking strategy).

It is obvious the referendum (presuming it will go ahead) would be ignored and will be too late anyway, asset shares will have already been sold.

Smacking Bill

It has often been pointed out that these same Green and Labour parties (and other parties) ignored the last referendum, on smacking.

Voter turnout was 56.1%. While 87.4% of votes answered ‘no’, the question drew widespread criticism from the public, parliament, and even the prime minister John Key for being a loaded question and for the use of the value-judgement ‘good’.

I thought the question was poor too, I could have justified answering either Yes or No depending on how I looked at the question. Because the referendum question didn’t directly address the Bill it could be (and was) easily ignored.

Marriage Bill

There have also been calls for a referendum on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

Some want it to be a Government initiated referendum and it be made binding. It is a conscience vote in Parliament so there is some justification for this.

Others say that if ‘the people’ want a referendum they should start a petition. Like the others this would take massive effort and resources and take far too long.

There is not going to be a gay marriage referendum, but if there was should Parliament abide by the result? There are valid questions about whether the majority should be able to impose possibly discriminatory will on a minority.

All bills are not equal

Obviously all bills have different aspects to them.

The Asset bill is Government policy that was a major issue in the last election.It has been debated on strictly party lines, Government (National, Act and UnitedFuture) versus Opposition.

The Marriage bill was a private members bill so has only been debated since the election, and is a conscience vote, with mixed support and opposition from National and Labour MPs (Greens have all agreed with it but they tend to block vote anyway).

Green support for referenda is not equal

Green MP Kevin Hague commented on the issue of a marriage referendum on his facebook page:

Maybe 1% of submitters to the Select Committee thought there should be a referendum on marriage equality. As we get into the final stages of the parliamentary process these referendum calls have become stronger.

There are two reasons for this: one group of MPs believes their supporters are mostly opposed to the legislation, so want to be able to vote against without having to use homophobic or irrational arguments, while another group is opposed to the legislation for homophobic or irrational reasons, and sees a referendum as a means of delay.

There’s some irony here, as some views on the asset referendum go along the lines of “while another group is opposed to the legislation for political reasons, and sees a referendum as a means of delay”.

Joshua James comments:

The very idea of a referendum is ridiculous. The concept of the ‘majority’ voting on minorites rights is disturbing. There are elected members for this purpose.

Also ironic, claiming “very idea of a referendum is ridiculous“. There is some merit to this argument, but it assumes what the ‘majority’ would say.

Yes, there are elected representatives for this purpose, that’s our model of representative democracy.

Also, comparing a referendum of the sale of assets to a referendum on marriage equality is ridiculous. Every New Zealander owns these assets, no one but me and my partner own my relationship.

Kevin Hague agreed:

Very well put Joshua!

Comparing referenda on different issues is ridiculous? Or is this a case of supporting a referendum that you think will benefit you and opposing a referendum that you fear might give you a result you don’t like?

Seems like selective support of democracy – when it suits.

Future Referenda

Green’s past opposition to taking notice of referenda (smacking) and current mixed support – for the asset referendum anmd against one for marriage – raises questions about their commitment to democratic processes.

Would Greens commit to abiding by the result of any future Citizen Initiated Referendum?

Or would they select which referenda suit them to support?

I think this is an important question – particularly when the Greens openly express pride about being a party run on sound democratic principles.

Question for Greens

Would Greens support the will of the majority in any future CIR, or will they decide which referenda are ridiculous on a case by case basis?

Chris Auchinvole’s Marriage Equality Bill speech

This Chris Auchinvole speech in parliament on the second reading of the Marriage Equality Bill sums the criticisms and deliberations very well – video: and transcript:

Hansard text (link to all of the second reading):

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : In the first reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill I voted that it be sent to the Government Administration Committee to ensure a call for submissions and a platform for discussion, and I am very glad that I did that. Serving on the select committee as deputy chairman was instructive, illuminating, and educative, and it was a pleasure working with the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair.

I wish now to speak to the considerations of the select committee. The one aspect that was universal—common to all submitters—was that marriage is special, precious, and desirable. Everyone said so, no matter which part of the argument they were interested in. The issue is over who can or cannot participate in it. Submitters were very definite in expressing their particular views.

I found there were three main groupings, and I would like to talk about them now. One grouping has an eschatological view of the bill—in other words, to pass the bill will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it. This was a very firmly held view. It is perceived as a slippery slope, leading to our ultimate demise as a nation and as a civilisation.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of submitters who hold to this view. It was sincerity, though, that seemed to be entirely based on apprehension and fear and circular reasoning, rather than on a persuasive argument.

Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage.

I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.

Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion.

It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed. We have already heard from the Hon Ruth Dyson about section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has always stipulated that it authorises but does not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise a marriage to which the licence relates.

The select committee has recommended a new clause that makes it abundantly clear that ministers of religion or celebrants from approved organisations are not obliged to solemnise a marriage if to do so would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisation.

I thoroughly enjoy theological discussion and have a huge appetite for it. I have been most grateful for the opportunity to sit with clergy from many different denominations and engage with them on this issue.

By providing and ensuring that this bill deals only with secular issues—I will say it again: it deals only with secular issues—it nevertheless leaves a dilemma for established religious groups that wish to differentiate their churches or holy matrimony from the new definition if the bill passes. It is not for the State to have a view on this. It is for the churches to resolve in their own way and time, and I look forward to engaging in that discussion in a personal capacity in my own time.

The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part. It ain’t necessarily so.

I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercised the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope!

During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or, indeed, wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Bans of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.

Some statistics to show this change to the institution are quite illuminating. Twenty-three percent of marriages are conducted in a registry office, 32 percent of marriages are conducted in a church, and 45 percent are conducted by independent marriage celebrants. The figures shout out change that we cannot close our ears to.

I found it personally significant that from the—wait for the figures—9,347 independent marriage celebrants, which is nearly 10,000 independent marriage celebrants, and 530 civil union celebrants, so that is 10,500 all together, the select committee received two—two—submissions.

The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matters of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening.

To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine is at 7 years old, when I was a boy.

I looked at catechismic values when learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you?” “God made me.” “Why did God make you?” “God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?”

The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “… as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue.

Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that. I have addressed the question of eschatology in my mind, the question of ensuring religious freedom, and the assumption of benign institutionalisation. My conscience is not clouded or indeed involved in this issue.

As an older person, we do have baggage to carry of remembering when homosexuality was illegal—in fact, it was criminal—and it was, we were told, immoral. There were two definite groups of people who came and made submissions before us, and it was what I would call a generational divide.

So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice—and I would not want that to be a deciding feature—I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul.

What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact to be seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins.

They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that is the family.

We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.

Consequences of gay marriage

Gay marriage consequences


Submissions against marriage equality

Kevin Hague blogs on the most common submissions to the parliamentary select committee against the Marriage Equality Bill – Marriage equality – the submissions against:

The submissions were roughly evenly split, with a small majority in favour of the Bill. However, there was a striking difference – those against were largely presenting a perspective based on religious belief, while those in favour presented a much wider range of arguments and reflected a broader cross-section of society; churches, health organisations, youth groups, unions, law or human rights groups and so on.

Of those opposed, I am pleased to say that relatively few were of the hateful nature I have seen on previous bills, or promised me that I would burn for eternity in a lake of fire, but those people are still out there. Much more commonly, submitters would say that they had nothing against gay people, or had gay friends.

Most of the submissions opposed to the Bill used, paraphrased or even quoted verbatim the Family First submission guide. Unfortunately this meant many repeated errors of fact or argument that Family First had made. The most common arguments that appeared in opposing submissions were:

1. Tradition – marriage as always been between a man and a woman, and we have an obligation to maintain this tradition, either as a duty to our predecessors and descendants, or because of (typically undefined) bad consequences if tradition is betrayed.

2. Natural/divine – actually two separate ideas but usually expressed linked. Heterosexual marriage arises from the natural order of things in which both a man and a woman are necessary to reproduce, which is the point of marriage. Usually expressed with the extra criterion that God intended/designed that it be so.

3. Exclusivity – the special status of heterosexual marriage is worth protecting, and it would be undermined and devalued if others were allowed into the club. Usually expressed with the companion idea that same sex couples should be entitled to the same legal rights (separate but equal), but civil unions are the right vehicle for this.

4. Dictionary – marriage is inherently between one man and one woman (the dictionary says so). Parliament cannot change the meaning of a word, any more than it could make the word “red” now mean green.

5. Human rights – there is not a human right to marry, and if there is, then the right is satisfied because LGBT can marry a person of the opposite sex. The argument usually uses all of the categories of marriages that are not permitted (children etc) to demonstrate the point.

6. Religious freedom – a very large number of submitters say the Bill infringes their religious freedom, both by legalising same-sex marriages against their beliefs but more particularly by opening the door for their churches/ministers to be legally challenged if they refuse to solemnise same-sex marriages. Some also suggested that essentially commercial transactions like hiring a hall were also problematic, and a very small number expressed concern that they would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about marriage.

7. Children – if the Bill is passed same-sex couples will be considered spouses for the purposes of the Adoption Act and will become eligible to adopt children. This is undesirable because children need both their biological mum and dad or, failing that, at least adult male and female role models. Submitters typically used a “research has shown” type of statement and often cited a number of references which they believed or had been told demonstrated their point. Interestingly a smaller but still significant number of those opposed to the Bill made the explicit point that they had no problem with same sex couples being considered for adoptive parents.

8. Slippery slope – if the Bill is passed it will open the door to parallel arguments for marriage rights to be extended to polyamorous, incestuous and bestial marriages, which Parliament will be forced to accept.

9. Downfall – related to the tradition theme. Marriage is the “fundamental building block” of society. If it is varied the structure will become inherently weaker and it will collapse, as Rome did. There are several variants, including one where allowing same-sex marriage results in fewer children being born, leading to population decline.

10. Perversion/sin – didn’t appear explicitly in most submissions against but was often implicit. Essentially these are people who see homosexuality as a sinful or unnatural behaviour that people can choose. Any law change that facilitates or validates that choice is seen as hastening moral crisis in our society with dire results. Often accompanied with allusions to ancient Greece and Rome. An explicit version :”if this Bill becomes law we will become overwhelmed by a tide of perversion and depravity that will make our country not fit to live in.”

11. Minority – LGBT New Zealanders make up a tiny minority, and we shouldn’t change the law for such a small number, especially when it will offend the beliefs of many.

I’ve heard all those arguments in blog discussions, especially at Kiwiblog, some seem almost verbatim.


Arguments against changing the marriage law

There are regular discussions on Kiwiblog about marriage equality and homosexuality. Here are some comments from yesterday’s General Debate in support of no change to marriage law.

The discussion was kicked off by this comment by iMP:

Latest poll (Curia/FamFirstNZ) on same-sex marriage (thanks DPF). 47% agree, 43% believe Civil Unions sufficient. Half of NZ think should go to a binding referendum. Strong support for special protections for people who disagree with gay marriage.



“hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow”

As it eventually will.


Marriage due to it’s very nature – the relationship OF natural procreation- has by it’s very PERFORMANCE or PATTERN been defined for 6000+ years – long, long, long before NZ law was ever ‘recognized’.


As clueless as ever Pete George as regurgitates shallow feminist memes and displays his profound ignorance of history, culture and human nature.

Listen you testosterone challenged dolt – in the real world it was fucking hard to ensure childrens survival and thus the requirement of bonding the father of any children to their mother before they were even conceived spontaneously evolved in many places long before there were Governments.

Governments usurped marriage beginning about 200 years ago and like anything the Government gets grubby its hands on have just about fucked it


Procreation has ALWAYS been at the center of Marriages’ existance.

Or in other words, if man was asexual and did NOT procreate, we would then NEVER EVER had anything like Marriage! :cool:

Yeah….some gays were ONCE Married SOMEWHERE long FORGOTTEN……and some men BEAT their wifes…….or what anyone who takes the welfare of children seriously would say – a statistical abberation. :cool:

Your arguements are immature. :cool:


I will bet you that Pete George cannot give a sound reason as to why we need same sex marriage?

Sure he can fling about bullshit about “discrimination” but that is crap the rules surrounding who can marry who are the same for everybody which means there is no disrimination.


Here’s a sound and sane reason why he shouldn’t! :cool:

Children acquired by same-sex couples are subject to problems inherent in their status. In addition, same-sex couples are more likely to be at risk for a number of problems which directly impact their ability to parent. That’s both of them.


Why is it necessary, Pete George, for the Government to register the relationships between people?

Why does the Government have to be involved?

Can you give me a profound reason for this?


No no no Pete George, I can answer that but I am not going to be distracted by the vapid talking points that you have absorbed from the gay lobby.

That is a typical leftoid trick to try and change the subject when the emptyness of their arguments is exposed – it might fool the unintelligent but not me

You need to tell me why the Government needs to be involved in personal realtionships


You know SPC we will get gay “marriage”, it will be rammed down our throats.

And you people will continue to wring your hands over the number of children being bought up on the taxpayer, the numbers killed and injured at the hands of their momma’s latest boyfriend and all the other social pathologies that the lefts destruction of marriage as we received it have wrought.

If you want to fix these problems you need to encourage young men to “cleave” to young women and for them to stick together through thick and thin as they take full responsibility for their own children and the raising of them.

Instead we re going down the track of making marriage unappealing, making out it is a hotbed of violence towards women as P George did earlier on this thread and reducing it to being a piece of Government Issued paper celebrated on issuence with a cake with two dolls on top – a piece of paper with no signicance whatsoever.

This is so dumb as to be unbelievably stupid – it will also be fatal to our culture in the not so long term


De-inking marriage from its fundamental purpose which is managing procreation will do nothing to address these things which are all examples of mismanaged procreation.

You want to fix those problems then encourage normal people to get married and stay married – reward that, not the other


Gays as individuals and as couples are already being treated as equals as they have a civil union.!

The reason they can’t use the word ‘marriage’ is because the ‘relationship itself’ is not equal to the ‘hetro relationship’. It’s Completely differant – m/f as opposed to m/m and f/f.

You are asigned a sex at birth – by observation – not by an arbitary decision made by a mid wive or doctor.

And you can’t EVER change that truth.


Apparently they have had legal gay marriage in Canada for some time..It has not resulted in any great flurry of freedom, instead it has meant a big increase in state involvement in relationships impacting both adults and children.


I see little change to wider society as a result, it simply becomes more inclusive

Oh ye of such little foresight. Are you really that blind?
It will change everything. Marriage won’t be marriage any more – at least it won’t mean what it always did.

Fletch posted this quote:

For many years homosexuals simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. They wanted freedom to do as they pleased in the privacy of their own homes. With the exception of a few archaic, unenforced laws, homosexuals can now live without legal interference. As one writer put it, the closet door is wide open. Homosexual characters take the lead in TV sitcoms. They’ve been elected to Congress and sit on the President’s cabinet.

But liberty and influence have not been enough. Homosexuals are after bigger game. This debate is not about hate versus tolerance. It’s not about justice. It’s not even about the liberty to make life-long unions. It’s about something else. Homosexuals want the courts to give them by force what the public would not voluntarily cede: respect and honor.


Kea – marriage is the foundation of our civilization. It is worth fighting to preserve it, damaged as it has been by the progressives.


heres the thing. Dime has no issue with gay people (i think trannys are generally messed up though). i dont care who sleeps with who etc etc

BUT i do wonder if this gay marriage thing is just something driven by the gay elites with the sole purpose of pissing off the church.

what rights do gays not have under civil unions that “married” people have?


For a condescending middle of the road ahole, you seem rather insensitive to how a large group of people feel.

Because… The world won’t end.

The world won’t end if I cave your head in with a brick, but you’d probably prefer that didn’t happen.

Anyway, under a civil union people share the same surname if they wish. They live together. They have protection so if one of them dies they inherit that persons shit (bit of an issue with gay people in the past).

What exactly does marriage have that civil unions don’t?

They even have ceremonies for civil unions.

What percentage of the population is gay? 3%?

Percentage of Christians who are against it?

I know have 5 gay friends. 1 insists on the marriage thing, the other 4 don’t give a fuck.

So are we talking the minority of a minority that this effects? Along with piss weak losers like pg?


PG, Actually it does affect everyone, because marriage affects everyone in society because society is built on the institution of marriage. Family is the building block of society and anything that aids in the destruction of family helps destroy society.

You may not have the foresight to see it, but it ultimately does affect you and everyone else, married or not. The effects of it will ripple out, just like from a stone thrown into a pond.

Just look at what happened to the ancient Roman civilization. They were so powerful that no one could even touch them militarily, but they destroyed themselves from the inside-out – moral decay always precedes the actual fall of a civilization.


Dr. Carle Zimmerman from Harvard wrote a book in 1947 in which he researched the different roles that marriage played in different historical periods.  He wanted to find out if there was a correlation between the health of a nation and the health of the family.  His book is called “Family and Civilization”.

He found that there are three basic patterns to families.  One pattern is always dominant in a developing nation, the second pattern always dominates in a thriving nation, and the third pattern always dominates in a nation in decline.

He found a direct correlation between the health of the family and the health of a nation.  He said that you can predict exactly where a nation is in its life cycle just by studying the family. 

According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behaviour have signalled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

* Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.

* Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.

* Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.

* Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.

* Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated

* People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.

* Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.

* Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.


Sound like any culture that we know?


It’s another parameter in the same equation, Sofia. But its a very important parameter, since it deals with the label. And the label is not a word, it’s the brand. And if brand isn’t important, how come Microsoft and IBM and any corporate, spends billions on every single year and puts it on its balance sheet.

Those who don’t understand social engineering think it’s just a word, and they also think because it doesn’t affect them or their marriage, that therefore, ergo, ipso facto, it’s not a big deal.

Which is what they want you to think.

But if you do understand social engineering, and it’s not hard if you care to educate yourself, then you know, this is precisely why there’s a global campaign, not just a local campaign, throughout the Western world, specifically to capture the brand this single word.

Those who think might ask themselves, just why there is such a global campaign, over this single word. If it wasn’t important and it really is just a word.

And in case you’re wondering, the word isn’t marriage, it’s what it connotes in people’s mind: i.e. why a brand like IBM is on the balance sheet at billions of dollars. It’s not because it’s an initialism standing for International Business Machines. It’s because when people see it or hear it they immediately conjure up a mental image. That’s what the value is. And with marriage, guess what people immediately conjure up: that’s right. Family, children, commitment, fidelity, all those good things. That all changes, if all of a sudden, marriage is associated with other “values” just precisely exactly the same way it would change if IBM teamed up with some tinpot Chinese PC maker who built crap products and swore at their customers when they dared to call the help line. IBM wouldn’t do that in a million years. But apparently, lots of extraordinarily useless moron idiots, don’t see anything wrong with treating the marriage brand, in precisely exactly the same way.

Isn’t that dumb of them.

And they’re not going to suffer, it’s their kids and their grandkids who will experience the slow and subtle change over the decades as marriage becomes nothing more than a casual meaningless commitment that is no more significant in the wider context of someone’s overall life than a drunken 21st party.

That’s the plan. And it’s proceeding apace isn’t it. All wrapped up in its “human wights” envelope. Lest the useless moron idiots get wind of it before it’s all too late.


So your argument is that because since the sixties, when feminism got started on it, the marriage brand as it now is today is damaged, therefore it’s not worth saving?

That’s a pretty dumb argument Sofia.

Perhaps you should look at what happened to Apple, in its “wilderness years” before Jobs took back the helm.

But that’s trivial, by comparison to marriage.

However, good to see you didn’t address any of the substantive points I made. You can’t really, can you. It’s very simple, isn’t it.

Only useless idiots morons don’t get it. Perhaps it’s all that weeping and wailing and rending their clothes, over the humanity of it all.

Too bad the same useless idiot morons don’t think about their own kids isn’t it, when they’re thinking about “the humanity.”

But that would require an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t it. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a high level of useless moron idiocy surrounding this issue.

It’s unlikely any of those views will change no matter what counter argunments are used.

Marriage bill polls and Family First

Family First commissioned a poll and are now making claims based on the results, but the polls are not directly comparable, and Bob McCoskrie is making highly disputable claims like “Support steadily dropped” and “no discrimination in the law currently”.

Colmar Brunton May 2012
In New Zealand same-sex couples can enter into a Civil Union, but they are not able to get married. Do you think same-sex couples should be able to get married?

  • Yes: 63%
  • No: 31%
  • Don’t know: 5%
  • Prefer not to say: 1%

Herald Digipoll question published Dec 27, 2012
“Which of these statements best fits your views about marriage law: 1) It should remain only between a man and a woman (37.5%), 2) It should be changed to allow it between same-sex couples (59.3%)

Herald on Sunday January 6 2013
Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?

  •   Yes 53.9%
  •   No 38.1%
  •   Unsure 8%

Family First (Curia) February 2013
In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union,
amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex
couples. Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow
same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex

  • Change marriage to allow same sex marriage 47%
  • Civil unions are sufficient 43%
  • Unsure/refuse 10%

The first two polls are fairly neutrally worded.
The third poll isn’t definitive, for example “Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?” could be answered know if you though marriage should be scrapped and everyone have the civil union option equally.

The Family First ‘question’ is a statement that is as loaded as hell and can’t be compared to the others.

The support for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill has steadily dropped. Bob McCoskrie said, “We have got past the slogans of ‘marriage equality’ and ‘discrimination’ and the debate is now centered around the real purpose and role of marriage and the fact that there is actually no discrimination in the law currently,”

There is nothing in these polls that refers to support for Louisa Wall’s bill so the “steadily dropped” claim is nonsense, and “actually no discrimination in the law currently,” is false.

Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill is currently going through Parliament. The first MP vote was strongly in support of it. Some groups are trying to have a referendum on the issue but there are no plans for that.

Marriage leading to hell – apparently there are still ‘Christians’ this extreme

There is a handful of old school Christians who either work in shifts or flock en masse to to Kiwiblog when certain topics come up, especially at the moment anything on marriage equality or homosexuality. Some see the end of the world as nigh if a small minority are given the same right to legally married as most of us.

There are other Christians who don’t push their pulpits, and no doubt more who keep their beliefs to themselves.

Sometimes religious arguments tend towards the extreme, where some from both sides can be rude and display high degrees of intolerance.

One occasional visitor is Scott. Here is some of what he posted yesterday on Craig says he would vote for gay marriage if electorate backs it.

Marriage is a natural pairing of a man and woman that existed before the state. Before government, before even kings there was marriage. First mentioned in the Bible with the pairing of the first two human beings, Adam and Eve.

Gay marriage in contrast is purely a creation of the state. So it represents a relatively small number of gay activists using the power of the state to impose homosexuality as worthy of the status of marriage. So it is an excellent example of the state interfering in people’s lives.

So far a fairly fundamental Christian view.

It will require heaps of legislation changes and will inevitably lead to persecution of conservatives and Christians by the state. But when pastors go to jail and churches are fined out of existence for not allowing gay marriage on their premises no doubt many on this thread will congratulate themselves on how wonderful it is that the state is not intruding in people’s lives.

There are a few who see it as a direct threat to them, sometimes to the extent of paranoia.

My point is that marriage is not an invention of the state and existed before the state. Gay marriage is an invention of the state and would not exist without major government legislation. So the people who are for gay marriage are the ones promoting government interference in people’s lives.

A common (minority) Christian view is that allowing other people to get married is state interference in their own lives. They see it as a threat to their beliefs.

Marriage existed before the State, before there were even kings and queens. When Abraham married Sarah there were no government officials or even nation states. So marriage preceded the state.

Scott thinks that Christianity created marriage and therefore owns marriage.

Others suggested that defacto relationships preceded marriage. Not as far as Scott is concerned.

SPC my dear chap. One is entitled to one’s opinion, one is not entitled to one’s own facts. In the beginning there were de facto relationships and then came marriage is nonsense. Provide lots of evidence please or immediately withdraw your statement.

Without “lots of evidence” you can discount the opposing view.

For your information marriage occurs in the Bible with married couples like Abraham and Sarah who lived around 1800BC.
The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs had wives etc, etc. The evidence for marriage in ancient times and not de facto relationships is so overwhelming that to suggest otherwise is simply not rational.

Claims evidence of marriages and not of de facto relationships.

I suggested there must have been coupling of humans before marriage at some stage back in history, so ‘de facto’ first is really the only practical possibility. “In fact ‘suddenly marriage being created’ before any other type of relationship makes no sense at all.”

Have to agree to disagree Pete my old stick. First two human beings created by God and married by God. I know descending from apes, millions of years, all that sort of thing is fashionable but I just think it’s all bollocks really. The de facto relationships precedes marriage idea is a product of evolutionary speculation and doesn’t have any actual historical data to back it up.

His claims have no historical data to back them up (the Bible isn’t historical data), but no matter. Scott is about to launch THE BIG THREAT.

I just don’t know why people abandon faith in God to embrace evolution and consequently atheism. It’s a terrible world view to live by. No hope, no purpose, no love, just blind pitiless indifference.

By the way Pete, when you die, which way are you going to go? Up or down?

Thunder and brimstone – if you don’t agree, accept, believe, you are the pits will be damned to hell.

Having never believed in hell (but having of hope, purpose and love in my life) I find it hard to understand how people can have such strong views and beliefs, and how they can have such a strong intolerance of their views being challenged.

And Scott wasn’t alone, ‘smallgovernment ‘ added their bit:

Pete, to say we ‘start as atheists’ is idiocy. We start life knowing nothing (although I believe we have a spiritual nature) and are taught – by our parents if they are worth their salt.

SPC, I’d say the onus is on you to make sure that your lack of belief in God is not going to have you end up in hell. You call that a threat (which is ridiculous, because I’m not creating the consequences) – I call it a warning or maybe an excellent reason to seek God to see if there really is something to Christianity.

Many of the atheists here think themselves very clever and look down their noses at Christians.

Ironic saying that many athesists look down their noses at Christians having just intimated that if you “lack of belief in God” you will “end up in hell” is a lot more downward looking than our noses.

Silly academic objections or logical arguments are a poor substitute for seeking an actual experience of God by reading the Bible and praying.

I have no problem with people who get something out of reading the Bible and who pray – it’s their choice what they do and what they believe.

But in the modern world “silly academic objections” and “logical arguments” have superceded many old beliefs. Most Christians understand (I think) that the knowledge of the world now means that they have to modify their beliefs, that ancient writings were not literal and did not always portray a way of life or ways of the world that make any sense with a modern scientific knowledge.

But a few cling to a fervent belief in what many now see as unbelievable.

And those few seem to really fear the threat that modern knowledge is to the very essence of their beliefs.

And sometimes they try to transform their fear  and transfer it to those of us who think and believe differently.

I have been threatened with hell last night and in the past. Yes, it is an attempted threat of consequence of not agreeing, of not believing rthe same. But I have never had any belief in it or fear of ‘hell’. There is absolutely no evidence of it and nothing to suggest it is anything but a priestly construct designed to scare people into complying with their demands.

To hell with hell. It is nothing more than a last resort in an argument, it’s the ultimate threat with no argument.

And utlimately that’s a sign that some with extreme religious views see their views increasingly threatened by modern reality.

They are in a blind, pitiful spiritual trap of their teacher’s making.

Marriage equality especially important for transgender people

I hadn’t thought how important marriage equality might to transgender people, more so than homosexuals having equal rights to get married. In addition to that they have a unique problem under current marriage law.

If someone who is married changes gender they either can’t legally change their gender identity status, or they can’t remain married, because same sex marriage is not possible.

A GayNZ post Trans marriage equality by Diane Sparkes explains this.

When a person who changes their gender to that of the opposite gender i.e. male to female or female to male, they have the legal right to make changes to all public records, to change their birth certificate, in order to reflect their chosen gender identity.

That’s fine, as long as they aren’t married.

Under the present law when one party to a legal marriage changes their gender identity, the state requires that before the transitioning partner can achieve true legal gender identity status, the marriage is dissolved. In the case where neither party wishes to dissolve their marriage, both parties find themselves in a no win situation. Each partner is forced by the state to divorce the other even though love and support has maintained the relationship through arguably one of the most difficult situations any married couple will ever face.

The law does not actually demand divorce or enforce dissolution; however should the transitioning partner make no application to obtain their legal status, they become further disadvantaged as failing to achieve ones legal status carries many uncertain issues. For example a male who transitions to female will still be male in the eyes of the law and vice versa!

In effect, for proper legal recognition of their gender status, current marriage law forces a divorce.

To friends, family and society the couple after transition, still present themselves as a couple as they have always done. The law however, because of current legislation is unable to make the necessary changes allowing the transgender partner their right to be legally recognised because they are still legally married.

Passing this bill will remove a serious injustice placed upon the married transgender individual, because it will no longer be a requirement of the state for the dissolving of the marriage.

The transgender person will then be able to achieve legally their new gender identity, stay married, and maintain the family unit. Then and only then will true equality to exist.

The simple solution is to enable marriage equality.

As Diane also points out, when a spouse wishes to change gender the marriage will often break down anyway. But marriage equality would remove one major complication in what can be a very difficult time.

Colin Craig concedes gay marriage will have no effect

Asked in an interview whether his marriage, or his daughter’s potential marriage, would mean any less, be less important, heartfelt or rewarding, if marriage equality happens.


That’s not the question that I ask in considering this.


But that’s the question I am asking you.


Ah, no.

But I think it would affect the society in which I live. And that may have downstream effects. Do I know what those are? No.

Do I think those effects will be major? On balance, probably no.

But do I think I want a society which has marriage reserved as man and woman? Yeah I do.”

Full interview: Full feature on the interview will Colin Craig

Source: Craig concedes no impact on own marriage