Support NeoGAF

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Polari said:
The thing is - as far as I can tell - legally this doesn't really change anything. We've had civil unions for gay couples since 2004 which afforded all the same rights except adoption (you could however still adopt as an individual).

They weren't marriages though.

I don't know how NZ does it, but unless you had a national relationships register or some equiv there probably was higher evidentiary requirements in proving civil unions as well

Polari said:
I just don't understand why it has been such a big issue. We more or less already did this with the Civil Union Bill. I support it, but I don't understand the people on Facebook who act as though this is some civil rights watershed moment and I understand even less the likes of Protect Marriage who don't seem to realise the horse has long bolted anyway. I guess there's some validation in gay marriage being recognised by the state as opposed to just civil unions, but part of me thinks fuck the state, call it a marriage if you want anyway. As long as the legal rights are already there you're golden.

I think about it like this - some people invest a lot of meaning into the status of marriage for various reasons. Some think it casts them in the eyes of god, others say it's a public statement of a lifelong commitment, whatever. Even if a civil union had all the legal rights of a marriage, it doesn't carry alongside it that associated bundle of meanings that marriage has gained throughout various cultures over the course of centuries. So it's access to this somewhat ephemeral aspect of marriage that is the issue here, and it's why civil unions, even with all equivalent legal rights, simply aren't enough for same-sex couples.

red731 · Apr 17, 2013

Congratulations NZ.

Dastardly Jerks · Apr 17, 2013

Forget Cricket and Rugby, New Zealand beat Australia in something that actually matters.

Jacob · Apr 17, 2013

Congratulations! I will eat a kiwi today in celebration.

Er, kiwifruit.

Kabouter · Apr 17, 2013

Arksy said:
New Zealand? You bet.
Canada? Yup.
The United Kingdom? Yes.
United States. Some states, yeah. Others are going to be a bit of a pain.
Australia? Well, um...yeah..we'll get back to you. It'll be at least 6-9 years, or possibly longer.

On the other hand, various former British colonies still have the death penalty for homosexuality, so, you know, you're not last.

Anyway, great job New Zealand

Deleted member 1235 · Apr 17, 2013

ah found it, the only legal negative between civil union and gay marriage was that civil union couples could not adopt children as a couple. One of the individuals would have to adopt giving the other no real rights/claim to the kid.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

Dastardly Jerks said:
Forget Cricket and Rugby, New Zealand beat Australia in something that actually matters.

And that is more the bigger point that needs to be made here. As far as legislation and social issues are concerned, I can't remember a time, at least in recent history where NZ has left Australia in the dust like this. Our politicians have been completely humiliated by this and I'm not even sure they're aware of it, or if they are aware, I'm not sure if they care.

Either or, that is a disgrace. That is the one thing I think Julia Gillard should be criticized the most for apart from being a robot when discussing anything, and that is being the first openly Atheist Prime Minister ever who so easily bent over to the right wing faction in the Labor Party who are supported by religious lobby groups. Just flat out stupidity everywhere.

thesoapster · Apr 17, 2013

And so begins the plunge into darkness!

My state legalized it last year and so far we have not descended into hell or anything...hmm

CrankyKong · Apr 17, 2013

With a conservative catholic PM for the next three years, australia won't be doing gay marriage at the federal level.
Maybe Victoria or Tasmania might start something.

strata8 · Apr 17, 2013

GoddyofAus said:
Our politicians have been completely humiliated by this and I'm not even sure they're aware of it, or if they are aware, I'm not sure if they care.

They don't care.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she won't be moved from her stance against gay marriage despite New Zealand passing legislation allowing same sex couples to tie the knot.

Asked by a member of the public at a community cabinet in Melbourne on Wednesday night why Australia lagged behind New Zealand in legalising gay marriage, Ms Gillard said she would not be changing her mind on the issue.

"I doubt we're going to end up agreeing," Ms Gillard said.

She told the community cabinet at Ringwood that Labor has allowed a conscience vote on the matter.

Last year, an attempt to legalise gay marriage failed in the Australian parliament, with Ms Gillard opposed to the move, and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott refusing coalition MPs a conscience vote.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rriage-vote-20130417-2i0sv.html#ixzz2Qit3vXHM

I just hope the backlash against this reaches the point where something can be done about it. Tony's going to be hit the hardest since his party policy opposes gay marriage, contrary to Labor.

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

I don't really understand why Gillard opposes it, is it to do with her seat specifically or is she just weirdly conservative like that? I've never seen her actually lay out any reasoning behind her stance. If the party supports it I don't understand why she doesn't, unless there's some factional bullshit underneath it all.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

strata said:
They don't care.

I just hope the backlash against this reaches the point where something can be done about it. Tony's going to be hit the hardest since his party policy opposes gay marriage, contrary to Labor.

Party policy doesn't mean jack shit if your front benchers are completely flubbing off the issue as if it doesn't matter. They don't even bother to give a proper justification for their views, they just rattle off the same bullshit line that sounds like they practiced it with the local Catholic Bishop, "Marriage is between a man and a woman".

My question to that would be "why is it only between a man and a woman?", and their whole position would unravel like a hollow Mummy, because they can't answer that question truthfully without citing religious reasons, and that shit won't fly with the public.

Jintor said:
I don't really understand why Gillard opposes it, is it to do with her seat specifically or is she just weirdly conservative like that? I've never seen her actually lay out any reasoning behind her stance. If the party supports it I don't understand why she doesn't, unless there's some factional bullshit underneath it all.

It's factional bullshit. The Right faction put her in that seat in the first place by knifing Rudd, and now they're the puppet masters.

cntr · Apr 17, 2013

Congratulaions kiwis!

Arksy · Apr 17, 2013

CrankyKong said:
With a conservative catholic PM for the next three years, australia won't be doing gay marriage at the federal level.
Maybe Victoria or Tasmania might start something.

Section 51(xxi) of the federal constitution vests power in the federal parliament with respect to marriage, s 51 (xxii) vests power with respect to divorce and custody. This is why the Family Court is a wing of the Federal Court.

Given High Court decisions on s 109 of the constitution (paramountcy provision, federal laws > state laws), federal legislation impliedly covers the field on the topic. This means that it would likely be unconstitutional for a state to legislate for same-sex marriages when the federal laws cover the field. There is a minority view that the legislation doesn't cover the field and therefore states can legislate on same-sex marriage but in my opinion, the High Court would strike such laws down.

CrankyKong · Apr 17, 2013

Jintor said:
I don't really understand why Gillard opposes it, is it to do with her seat specifically or is she just weirdly conservative like that? I've never seen her actually lay out any reasoning behind her stance. If the party supports it I don't understand why she doesn't, unless there's some factional bullshit underneath it all.

I don't think she actually opposes it, the same way Penny Wong surely wouldn't.
I've heard it has something to do with the ALP catholic right or something.
Either way its bullshit

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Arksy said:
Section 51(xxi) of the federal constitution vests power in the federal parliament with respect to marriage, s 51 (xxii) vests power with respect to divorce and custody. This is why the Family Court is a wing of the Federal Court.

Given High Court decisions on s 109 of the constitution (paramountcy provision, federal laws > state laws), federal legislation impliedly covers the field on the topic. This means that it would likely be unconstitutional for a state to legislate for same-sex marriages when the federal laws cover the field. There is a minority view that the legislation doesn't cover the field and therefore states can legislate on same-sex marriage but in my opinion, the High Court would strike such laws down.

Agreed entirely. s51 means marriage is a federal issue. Any attempt to argue same-sex marriage to be a state issue would be like trying to walk up one's own spine.

CrankyKong said:
I don't think she actually opposes it, the same way Penny Wong surely wouldn't.
I've heard it has something to do with the ALP catholic right or something.
Either way its bullshit

It doesn't really matter whether or not she personally believes in it, she continues to keep saying she's against it which is the real problem.

The Penny Wong takedown of Hockey last year on Q&A was fucking majestic.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

Jintor said:
It doesn't really matter whether or not she personally believes in it, she continues to keep saying she's against it which is the real problem.

The Penny Wong takedown of Hockey last year on Q&A was fucking majestic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HruJmhzoOQ0

Here is that moment in question. Hockey sounded so out of his depth.

"...People like me..." The fact that Penny had to say those words at all is a disgrace.

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Chris Auchinvole, a former Prysbeterian minister and MP, offered a damn good speech back during the Second Reading Speech of this NZ law

Maurice Williamson also delivered an incredibly hilarious speech about what exactly the incredibly gay onslought will look like

Arksy · Apr 17, 2013

GoddyofAus said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HruJmhzoOQ0

Here is that moment in question. Hockey sounded so out of his depth.

"...People like me..." The fact that Penny had to say those words at all is a disgrace.

I'm largely a Liberal supporter, but their rhetoric on this issue disgusts me. Both sides should just realise in the wake of NZ, the UK, and Canada that this is going to happen sooner or later so you might as well bite the bullet and go down in the history books. Not to mention, the most important factor, in that it's right in principle to extend the liberty of marriage to any two adults who willingly consent.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

Arksy said:
I'm largely a Liberal supporter, but their rhetoric on this issue disgusts me. Both sides should just realise in the wake of NZ, the UK, and Canada that this is going to happen sooner or later so you might as well bit the bullet and go down in the history books. Not to mention, the most important factor, in that it's right in principle to extend the liberty of marriage to any two adults who willingly consent.

Yeah, you won't hear any argument from me, but good luck with that. Our pollies from both major parties are just so disconnected from the public at the moment, it is astounding. We may as well not be a democracy at all. Canberra has a stench of ignorance about it that is the worst it has ever been, in my opinion.

Falcs · Apr 17, 2013

So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

cntr · Apr 17, 2013

Falcs00 said:
So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

There are some, they just try to hide it and pretend that they're not bigots.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

Falcs00 said:
So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

There are, but they hide, because they're aware that the jig is up and the only things that are on their side now are ignorant politicians and religious lobby groups.

Polari · Apr 17, 2013

Jintor said:
I don't know how NZ does it, but unless you had a national relationships register or some equiv there probably was higher evidentiary requirements in proving civil unions as well

I think about it like this - some people invest a lot of meaning into the status of marriage for various reasons. Some think it casts them in the eyes of god, others say it's a public statement of a lifelong commitment, whatever. Even if a civil union had all the legal rights of a marriage, it doesn't carry alongside it that associated bundle of meanings that marriage has gained throughout various cultures over the course of centuries. So it's access to this somewhat ephemeral aspect of marriage that is the issue here, and it's why civil unions, even with all equivalent legal rights, simply aren't enough for same-sex couples.

1. No, there isn't. I think the original civil union bill was more or less the same as marriage legislation, the only difference being the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union". There is the adoption rights thing which I outlined earlier though.

2. I get that. I still find it kind of weird though. I know I'm not explaining myself very well here. I guess it's that I feel as though marriage is an outdated institution a lot of senses, because it has traditionally had religious and patriarchal overtones.

Kabouter · Apr 17, 2013

Falcs00 said:
So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

GAF is a very large forum, and there are probably thousands of members who are opposed to the idea of gay marriage. That said, because the forum skews fairly young and is obviously overwhelmingly Western in its membership, they are unlikely to be a majority. I think the main reason you don't see them in threads regarding gay marriage very often is because there is no real argument to be made against gay marriage that isn't based on simple intolerance or religious doctrine.

CornBurrito · Apr 17, 2013

Falcs00 said:
So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

They do exist, but I am willing to bet not a single one has a non-religious or scientifically valid reason for objecting to gay marriage. And when your position is "I want to deny a group of minorities their rights, because of my own personal faith" it isn't worth sharing because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You also sometimes get hit and runs like: "Not gonna post what I think." or "I wish this hadn't happened."

FYC · Apr 17, 2013

Falcs00 said:
So I'm guessing not one single person on neoGAF is against gay marriage, right?

I mean, just going by everyone's reaction.

There are.

Canuck76 said:
I'll hit you back on that. The bible makes it pretty clear that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. It also makes it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now obviously I'm totally against policing people or whatever. People have a right to do whatever they want in their house if it's consenting. But the bible makes it pretty clear what marriage is and isn't. On top of that once you legitimize homosexual marriage you have a whole slew of other things that go with that, that I'm against

Also to previous people posts about infertile marriages that's fine with me. It's still a man and a woman. When you have a man and a woman there's a certain naturalness to the mechanics of sex. Without getting gory in homosexual intercourse you got two pegs coming together where there should be a peg and a hole.

It's just not natural guys, even without the bible. And it's great that you want to defend others people right to do what they want. But it's not right. And it's not a denial of a right when marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

Thanks for asking an honest question timedog. I'm sure you disagree with me, but your quite cordial.

Spongebob said:
My explanation has to do with religious reasons, which I know most members here on GAF would laugh off and or insult me for it.

My posts just have to do with me stating what I feel about what has happened or his happening, nothing more and nothing less.

If the mods don't feel that they way I'm doing things is correct, then in the future I'll be sure to explain my position in my first post.

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Polari said:
1. No, there isn't. I think the original civil union bill was more or less the same as marriage legislation, the only difference being the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union". There is the adoption rights thing which I outlined earlier though.

2. I get that. I still find it kind of weird though. I know I'm not explaining myself very well here. I guess it's that I feel as though marriage is an outdated institution a lot of senses, because it has traditionally had religious and patriarchal overtones.

Not sure how NZ does it, but Australia basically rolls it under the roof of 'de facto' marriages, which have an evidentiary threshold that needs to be decided generally on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to marriage which just needs a marriage certificate) and has some additional thresholds in specific areas (like in succession law, de facto relationships have to have been together for two years and/or to have produced a child to be recognised). Hopefully NZ was already doing it better though (although it's kind of moot I suppose).

I get what you mean - some people just don't think marriage is that big a deal. But it's more of a society-wide view, which is why it requires society-wide change.

CornBurrito · Apr 17, 2013

michaelius said:
Defeated ? They are still defending themselves - the ones defeated are Kiwis.

What does this mean?

anarckitty · Apr 17, 2013

I <3 New Zealand

FYC · Apr 17, 2013

CornBurrito said:
What does this mean?

He's not a fan of gay marriage.

michaelius said:
It's called tolerance you know ? Even if i dislike something I understand we need to tolerate believes of other people (of course tolerance nowhere implies they should be given additional priviladges like marriage rights or children adoption).

But penalizing sexual preferences and especially to the point of capital punishment is clear violation of human rights and needs some external intervention to stop eventual genocide.

Uganda is pulling some serious Nazi Germany like shit here.

michaelius said:
Oh and where exactly was gay marriage declared as civil right ?

michaelius said:
LoL just because they are against giving homosexuls priviledges they are gay bashing ?

Kurtofan · Apr 17, 2013

shadyspace said:
gay marriage isn't legal in the UK

It's going to be.

Dark Octave · Apr 17, 2013

It's sad that this is still a headline in 2013 but I wonder how all the religious nuts feel knowing that eventually 100% of the first world will be truly equal when it comes to marriage.

Also a great time to be a wedding planner in NZ.

linsivvi · Apr 17, 2013

Godofnerdiness said:
He's not a fan of gay marriage.

What a joke.

Polari · Apr 17, 2013

Jintor said:
Not sure how NZ does it, but Australia basically rolls it under the roof of 'de facto' marriages, which have an evidentiary threshold that needs to be decided generally on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to marriage which just needs a marriage certificate) and has some additional thresholds in specific areas (like in succession law, de facto relationships have to have been together for two years and/or to have produced a child to be recognised). Hopefully NZ was already doing it better though (although it's kind of moot I suppose).

I get what you mean - some people just don't think marriage is that big a deal. But it's more of a society-wide view, which is why it requires society-wide change.

In New Zealand it's just like marriage - apply for a license and it's granted.

Dead Man · Apr 17, 2013

michaelius said:
Defeated ? They are still defending themselves - the ones defeated are Kiwis.

Only if you are the sort of moron that thinks two people getting married will harm you in some way, or you feel the need to create some Us vs Them dichotomy in which real Kiwis are just hanging on in the face of all this gay marriage propaganda by the fake gay Kiwis :/

Flightmare · Apr 17, 2013

Great job New Zealand

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Polari said:
In New Zealand it's just like marriage - apply for a license and it's granted.

Excellent. But ya'll have something better now, too.

Fucking hell. Get on the fucking ball, Australia.

Polari · Apr 17, 2013

Jintor said:
Excellent. But ya'll have something better now, too.

Oh I wouldn't say better. I think it's definitely better that gay couples now have the choice between civil unions and marriage, but I would consider a civil union more appropriate if I was going to make that kind of commitment, as I see it as the same as marriage but without all the patriarchal and religious baggage.

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

Point, point. As you say though, choice is the best of all.

Magni · Apr 17, 2013

McNum said:
So, who's next?

France next week normally.

Mr_Zombie · Apr 17, 2013

Congrats!

DR2K said:
Nice, how many more countries left?

We still don't even have civil unions, even though the ruling party calls itself "liberal", but at the same time is full of catholic conservatives that think gayness is a sin and that the legalization of civil unions (yes, civil union, we're not even talking about marriage here) would somehow "destroy the family".

freenudemacusers · Apr 17, 2013

Naked Snake said:
Gay marriage legalized in Middle Earth. Should have been the thread title.

Well, have you seen The Fellowship of the Ring? Seemed pretty legal to me...

Jintor · Apr 17, 2013

macuser1of5 said:
Well, have you seen The Fellowship of the Ring? Seemed pretty legal to me...

The central legal system in LOTR was pretty haphazard tbh

BeesEight · Apr 17, 2013

Dead Man said:
Only if you are the sort of moron that thinks two people getting married will harm you in some way, or you feel the need to create some Us vs Them dichotomy in which real Kiwis are just hanging on in the face of all this gay marriage propaganda by the fake gay Kiwis :/

But God will be quite tirade!

Congratulations, New Zealand!

freenudemacusers · Apr 17, 2013

CornBurrito said:
They do exist, but I am willing to bet not a single one has a non-religious or scientifically valid reason for objecting to gay marriage. And when your position is "I want to deny a group of minorities their rights, because of my own personal faith" it isn't worth sharing because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You also sometimes get hit and runs like: "Not gonna post what I think." or "I wish this hadn't happened."

You forgot the "I have gay friends and I'm totally cool with them being gay but being gay is a sin and I don't want them to have the same rights as me... for reasons".

Goldrusher · Apr 17, 2013

12 years after the old one.

GoddyofAus · Apr 17, 2013

macuser1of5 said:
You forgot the "I have gay friends and I'm totally cool with them being gay but being gay is a sin and I don't want them to have the same rights as me... for reasons".

I am more than convinced that all these people who say they have gay friends who don't mind them being against gay marriage are lying.

michaelius · Apr 17, 2013

CornBurrito said:
They do exist, but I am willing to bet not a single one has a non-religious or scientifically valid reason for objecting to gay marriage. And when your position is "I want to deny a group of minorities their rights, because of my own personal faith" it isn't worth sharing because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You also sometimes get hit and runs like: "Not gonna post what I think." or "I wish this hadn't happened."

Marriage isn't right - marriage is an institionized group of priviledges given by state that are granted to support increasing population of nation.

So what's the scientifically valid reason to grant them those benefits ?

freenudemacusers · Apr 17, 2013

michaelius said:
Marriage isn't right - marriage is an institionized group of priviledges given by state that are granted to support increasing population of nation.

lol no. When I got married there was no 'make babies' clause. Try again.

Support NeoGAF

New Zealand legalises gay marriage

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Similar threads