Marriage equality logo

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

13 Apr 2013, 9:31 am

Cornflake wrote:

The parents remain free to call them, mixed- or same-sex couples, whatever they want.

They (the bride and groom) will still no longer be identified as such on legal documentation.

Quote:

Oh - is it actually a "legal right" in NZ for a "straight" couple to be referred to as "bride" and "bridegroom"?

Yes.

Quote:

What the bill does is provide a balance of equality, where neither mixed-sex nor same-sex marriages are gender-identified - or would you rather see "bride" and "bridegroom", or "husband" and "wife" forced on a same-sex couple?
You expect one half to play the part of "husband" and the other to play the part of "wife" - gender-identified male and female roles imposed onto two men or two women?
It doesn't appear that you've put much thought into this...

What they need to do is keep the bride and groom option, and make another option or two for same sex marriages. Then it makes everyone happy, and both can be legally identified on legal documentation as such they want.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,646
Location: Over there

13 Apr 2013, 1:42 pm

TrainofLove wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

The parents remain free to call them, mixed- or same-sex couples, whatever they want.

They (the bride and groom) will still no longer be identified as such on legal documentation.

That wasn't what you were originally complaining about - but, so what? Isn't it equality where all married couples are not referenced by gender identification? There's still nothing to prevent people referring to them as bride and groom if they want to: it's just an administrative tweak on paperwork.

Quote:

Oh - is it actually a "legal right" in NZ for a "straight" couple to be referred to as "bride" and "bridegroom"?

Yes.

Really? I'm surprised that legislation is in place to make that a legal right, protected by law. Do you have a link referencing that, please?
I can only think of a marriage certificate and some related documentation concerning a marriage where that might actually be specified, but what other paperwork is there where it is important to continue to specify "bride" and "bridegroom", as gender identifiers?
The link you provided seems pretty casual about it and appears to mention it in terms of obvious changes being required for various documentation which until now, had been exclusively "Mr/Mrs" and suchlike because nothing else had been allowed (what with same-sex marriage being illegal, an' all) - but now it is likely to be allowed, and a rethink will be required if it is.
That's not so shocking, is it?
Canada doesn't appear to have collapsed because it used "applicant" and "joint applicant", so I expect NZ will survive too.

Quote:

I think on balance I prefer the "one size fits all" option, and apparently so does the administration in NZ, because it makes no distinctions anywhere for any couple.
People are either married or they are not, as opposed to making an unnecessary documentation distinction between M/F marriages and same-sex marriages.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

13 Apr 2013, 9:56 pm

I'm not aware of a legislative "right" to be called a bride or groom in New Zealand, but the words "husband" and "wife" will still remain in New Zealand legislation, even if this bill (with all its amendments) is passed. Even if they didn't, there's nothing stopping anyone from being a husband or a wife to the person they love. The proposed new wording is purely administrative.

And not all jurisdictions that have adopted same-sex marriage use gender-neutral language on marriage licences: e.g., Washington state in the US has tickboxes for "bride", "groom" and "spouse" for each person on its marriage licence. You can email Births, Deaths and Marriages in NZ and ask for this option to be adopted, if you'd like.

The bill provides greater equality than what is afforded presently. It allows same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, which they don't have right now. No-one's rights will be reduced; they will remain as before. I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.

As for debate in the media, supporters and opponents of the bill have both had their say. I've read more than I care to on the issue, from both sides. The public have also had their say in the parliamentary process: I sent a submission in to the select committee, as did over 20,000 NZers, and I've sent emails to MPs (some of whom actually responded). As far as the parliament is concerned, the arguments of supporters appear to have been more convincing. Even with a drop of support in recent public opinion, support outweighs opposition on that front, too.

Final vote in parliament should be on 17 April. Email MPs now, if you wish to make your concerns known. Personally, I'm looking forward to this Wednesday.

Kotahi aroha (one love).

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

14 Apr 2013, 7:14 am

http://www.maxim.org.nz/Policy_and_Rese ... endme.aspx

Quote:

Maxim Institute has made a submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill arguing it does not reflect the nature of the institution of marriage, and will unreasonably limit crucial freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief as affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. What follows is the Executive Summary of our submission. A link to the full text may be found at the bottom of this page.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. We oppose the Bill because it does not reflect the nature of the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is a social institution that derives its function, purpose and value from the nature of human beings. It is a union of a man and a woman of a type that is oriented to having children and bringing them up, and this institution pre-dates the state.

5. We also oppose the Bill because it unreasonably limits crucial freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, as affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. We understand that this is not the intention of the Bill, but nevertheless that is the effect it will have. We submit that these freedoms are worthy of respect and protection.

6. We submit that the Bill will unreasonably limit freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief in four ways:

a. Marriage celebrants, including ministers of religion, will not be able to refuse to solemnise same-sex weddings even if this is against their beliefs;

b. Ministers of religion may not be able to refuse to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples if this is a service they offer to the public;

c. Churches and other religious organisations that hire out their facilities for weddings will be required to hire them out to same-sex couples, even if this is against their beliefs;

d. Discussion about the nature of the institution of marriage will be restricted.

7. If the Bill does proceed, it can still achieve its objective of changing the legal definition of marriage without unreasonably limiting these freedoms. Therefore, if the Bill proceeds, amendments should be inserted into the Bill to protect these freedoms. This submission includes three amendments that would do this.

8. The Bill would make an incidental, but major, change to adoption law and policy. Such a major shift should not occur without full consideration in its own right. If the Bill does proceed, it must be amended so that it does not change anything in the Adoption Act 1955, or in the practice of adoption agencies.

Full PDF HERE

A poster on another forum had this to say on the issue:

Quote:

It's also impeding on your right to an opinion, as well as freedom of speech, freedom to religious belief.

So no, the argument "Standing up for rights" is total BS. It's purely people jumping on the bandwagon... Anybody who's actually *read* what is being proposed would be standing up against the proposed amendments.
IF somebody is for same-sex marriages, fine, that's cool, but they need to be pushing for some *serious* amendments of the proposed law. You can be *for* same-sex marriages while still seeing the gaping flaws in what is being proposed.

As it stands, it looks like Louisa Wall basically got insulted one night about being lesbian and went home, put pen to paper while in a pissy mood, and drafted the amendment to make sure that nobody ever was able to question her relationship again. Then, her bill was plucked from the ballot a while later...

Go read the submission by Maxim. It's very well balanced and shows you exactly how the bill will be taking away the rights of others. Read the whole thing, not just the executive summary too.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,646
Location: Over there

14 Apr 2013, 8:33 am

Just going with the executive summary you posted:

4. We oppose the Bill because it does not reflect the nature of the institution of marriage.
The "institution of marriage" is an entirely man-made construct which is built around the assumption that the only "good" marriage is one between a man and a woman, made for procreation and the raising of children.

5. We also oppose the Bill because it unreasonably limits crucial freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
On the contrary - it grants crucial freedoms where they were previously denied. Existing freedoms are not limited.

a. Marriage celebrants, including ministers of religion, will not be able to refuse to solemnise same-sex weddings even if this is against their beliefs
Ah yes, this old chestnut. In the UK, nothing will force someone to solemnise same-sex weddings if this is against their beliefs, and I seriously doubt that NZ would create legislation which would force anyone there either.

b. Ministers of religion may not be able to refuse to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples if this is a service they offer to the public
If the service is offered to "the public" then it is unreasonable to discriminate on sexual grounds between members of that same public. The crucial point is that it is a public service and must therefore serve the public - not just a few "approved" sections of it. This is already dealt with by existing legislation and is not a new case requiring a different approach.
(there was a case in the UK where a couple offering a B&B service to the public lost a case because they refused to honour a booking made by a gay couple on the grounds that homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. Because they're offering a public service, they are bound by legislation applicable to the provision of a public service - which does not allow discrimination. As a private couple, they're perfectly free to refuse entry on religious grounds - but their B&B service was not private)

c. Churches and other religious organisations that hire out their facilities for weddings will be required to hire them out to same-sex couples, even if this is against their beliefs;
Another old chestnut. If their services are hired to the public then they must be available to the public. All of it.
Like (b) this is already subject to legislation concerned with the provision of a public service and with discrimination .

d. Discussion about the nature of the institution of marriage will be restricted.
Nonsense. People are as free to discuss, agree and disagree with the nature of marriage just as before.

7 just wants things done differently to correct what are presented as problems in the previous points.

8 appears to want to place restrictions on adoption legislation - let me guess... basically, no adoption allowed for same-sex couples?

If it makes it any easier for you to understand the iniquitous and bigoted nature of these objections - wherever you see "same-sex", substitute "mixed-race".

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

14 Apr 2013, 9:00 am

Cornflake wrote:

Fair point, I will give you that one.

Cornflake wrote:

5. We also oppose the Bill because it unreasonably limits crucial freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
On the contrary - it grants crucial freedoms where they were previously denied. Existing freedoms are not limited.

Assuming you've read the proposed bill, and watched the parliamentary debates, you could not in any way possible come to such a conclusion. I suggest you read the proposed bill, and watch the appropriate debates instead of what seems to be basing this of the UK's legislation

Cornflake wrote:

a. Marriage celebrants, including ministers of religion, will not be able to refuse to solemnise same-sex weddings even if this is against their beliefs
Ah yes, this old chestnut. In the UK, nothing will force someone to solemnise same-sex weddings if this is against their beliefs, and I seriously doubt that NZ would create legislation which would force anyone there either.

They do that sort of crap all the time over here.

Cornflake wrote:

b. Ministers of religion may not be able to refuse to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples if this is a service they offer to the public
If the service is offered to "the public" then it is unreasonable to discriminate on sexual grounds between members of that same public. The crucial point is that it is a public service and must therefore serve the public - not just a few "approved" sections of it. This is already dealt with by existing legislation and is not a new case requiring a different approach.
(there was a case in the UK where a couple offering a B&B service to the public lost a case because they refused to honour a booking made by a gay couple on the grounds that homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. Because they're offering a public service, they are bound by legislation applicable to the provision of a public service - which does not allow discrimination. As a private couple, they're perfectly free to refuse entry on religious grounds - but their B&B service was not private)

You've just proven my point exactly. A Marriage celebrant who is Athiest/not religious or associated with any church will have their cultural/ethical beliefs discriminated against and could have legal action taken against them. They currently have the right to refuse to do any time of ceremony of a gay couple.

Cornflake wrote:

c. Churches and other religious organisations that hire out their facilities for weddings will be required to hire them out to same-sex couples, even if this is against their beliefs;
Another old chestnut. If their services are hired to the public then they must be available to the public. All of it.
Like (b) this is already subject to legislation concerned with the provision of a public service and with discrimination .

So simply you couldn't care less about anyone else's belief's and values except your own. They said that all churches were covered in this legislation and every one had the right to refuse the use of their grounds. Now this could not be so and will discriminate and compromise the churches and it's members beliefs.

Cornflake wrote:

If it makes it any easier for you to understand the iniquitous and bigoted nature of these objections - wherever you see "same-sex", substitute "mixed-race".

Just the same old argument trying to equate same-sex with "mixed-race" and "gay" with "black". At least try and provide a discerning opinion that can hold water. And wow, nice attempt to hide calling me or my opinions bigoted, didn't work though.

As I've said a page back or so, I am not against gay marriage per say, I am against how it is currently being legislated in NZ, which compromises the rights of other individuals.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

14 Apr 2013, 9:17 am

To have things clearer, TrainOfLove, are you against same-sex marriage in general, or only against the potentian implementation of it in NZ law?

Also, how is same-sex marriage not a trans issue? Let's assume a marriage between a biological female and a FtM transexual; if the latter is legally a man he can marry normally; if the latter is legally a woman then he would benefit from same-sex marriage being allowed.

EDIT: now I have the answer to my first question. Well then, reading the proposed NZ implementation would be necessary to argue against that. Or agree, who knows.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Rorberyllium
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 546
Location: Maryland, United States

14 Apr 2013, 10:01 am

Shatbat wrote:

Also, how is same-sex marriage not a trans issue? Let's assume a marriage between a biological female and a FtM transexual; if the latter is legally a man he can marry normally; if the latter is legally a woman then he would benefit from same-sex marriage being allowed.

Most trans people would prefer being married as their gender, and wouldn't want a "same sex marriage" in that particular circumstance. Which is why the preferred nomenclature is "marriage equality" at this point.

Right now the most legally messy thing with trans people and marriage is post-marriage transitions. Depending on the state you live in, in some circumstances it nullifies the marriage, and in other circumstances it actually makes it impossible to get divorced. Marriage equality would hopefully solve this.

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

14 Apr 2013, 11:12 am

TrainofLove wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

I have read the NZ marriage equality bill in full (it's quite short) and have been monitoring and participating in debates. No existing freedoms are being curtailed. Section 29 of NZ's Marriage Act is clear: no celebrant is obliged to solemnise any marriage. It's a very broad protection. The amended bill makes specific mention of religious celebrants, but explicitly notwithstanding the generality of the protections for all celebrants.

Cornflake is correct in saying that existing freedoms are not limited by the bill. I have addressed celebrants above. If a business or religious organisation in NZ provides services to the public, they are subject to NZ's anti-discrimination laws, meaning that they can't discriminate or refuse service to people based on sexual orientation (among other things). This applies for civil unions, commitment ceremonies or any kind of event: importantly, this won't change regardless of the current bill.

I don't dispute that legitimate concerns have been raised regarding this bill. There has already been a lot of effort to address them, and I'm also open to further concerns being raised and addressed ... hopefully by Wednesday. It's not the intention of such bills to take away people's rights; rather, to provide equal rights for same-sex and opposite sex couples in marriage.

_________________
It is easy to go down into Hell;
Night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide;
But to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air –
There's the rub, the task.

– Virgil, The Aeneid (Book VI)

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

15 Apr 2013, 3:55 am

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I've put across my opinion as concise and constructive as I can, but i'm just getting the same old answers over and over. I think it's time I do the respectful thing and bow out of this discussion before things become ugly. I thank you, and cornflake, among others for keeping a calm, and mostly respectful discussion on this topic. I wish you all the best, but I just feel i'm hitting my head against a brick wall.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Murihiku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,948
Location: Queensland

15 Apr 2013, 5:55 am

Perhaps it's because the arguments you've put forth here have been addressed elsewhere many times before. If you think differently, feel free to correct me; otherwise, I'm happy to leave it there. Kia ora.

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,646
Location: Over there

15 Apr 2013, 7:56 am

Late catching up with this one and as Murihiku agrees with what I've said, I'll just address this:

TrainofLove wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

If it makes it any easier for you to understand the iniquitous and bigoted nature of these objections - wherever you see "same-sex", substitute "mixed-race".

It wasn't a dig aimed at you personally and I wasn't trying to equate anything with anything else.
I was attempting to illustrate how inherently bigoted it is in general to enact legislation which seeks to deny one section of society the rights and freedoms enjoyed by another, and I used the example of race because there were similar and quite irrational arguments made there too.

Quote:

I've put across my opinion as concise and constructive as I can, but i'm just getting the same old answers over and over.

As Murihiku says, that's probably because they've already been addressed. You're getting the same answers because they're accepted as correct answers, which resolve the issues raised.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

15 Apr 2013, 8:16 am

Cornflake wrote:

You're getting the same answers because they're accepted as correct answers, which resolve the issues raised.

If you say so.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,646
Location: Over there

15 Apr 2013, 8:34 am

:shrug: I'm just one of many providing those same answers.
That's not to say that you won't have a better answer, and if you have then go for it - but raising the same objections time and again while providing nothing new will change nothing.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

15 Apr 2013, 3:20 pm

TrainofLove wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877294

Now they're thinking of removing "Bride" and "Groom" from legal papers :evil:

This would mean than any straight couple than marry would no longer be legally identified as a Bride and Groom. A mother can no longer be a Mother of the bride, and father, Father of the bride under law. This is taking away legal rights of straight people and is just one of the many reasons why this current bill should not pass, that and the government shouldn't even have any say in these types of matters, it should be left for the public to decide.

This is what constitutes, "legally flawed," in your opinion?!? I have rarely been treated to a more pointless opinion--and I am a regular participant in PPR, so that's saying something.

There is no legal significance to the terms "bride" and "groom" anymore. That distinction was completely eliminated when married women became entitled to hold property separate and apart from their husband's at common law. There is no legal right inherent in the terms "bride" or "groom". There is no diminishment of rights of heterosexual couples.

Is that really the best argument you can muster?

Quote:

If they could let the public decide and fix all these issues, I would consider being more open to this bill. But as the bill currently stands, it can not be in any way identified as Marriage "Equality" as it does not provide equal rights and actually takes away from others previous legalities that they currently have.

Never mind that the media has been extremely biased and has not given both sides of the issue a fair argument, this is really is not equality in any way possible.

I'm not sure what they're proposing in the US, but I'd hope it's better than what's being proposed in NZ.

How do you propose that the "public" decide? Legislation isn't created by referendum in New Zealand, and never has.

So what is the question that you would put to the electorate? "Should same sex couples be capacitated to legally marry?" Would you bind yourself by the decision of such a referendum? It seems to me that if there are rights that are being extinguished, they would be extinguished whether enacted by Parliament or enacted by "the public" (however that would happen). You accept extinguishment by the public, but not by the legislature?

What, then, is to stop a majority of citizens from extinguishing the rights of any group of citizens? Suppose that women were to act to take voting rights away from men? Would that be acceptable in your view? How about extinguishing the rights of the Maori as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi? Is this acceptable?

I see no legal merit in any of your arguments. The protection for celebrants under the proposed New Zealand legislation is much broader than it is in any Canadian province (here, members of clergy may refuse to perform any wedding to which they object, but civil marriage commissioners are obliged to marry any qualified couple).

You seem to be spending a great deal of time trying to come up with a cogent argument to rationalize what appears to me to be a fundamental objection to same-sex couples entirely. Your arguments are specious, and irrational, and that suggests to me that what you really are is a bigot.

Never fear, though. Your freedom of thought, belief and opinion will be untouched. Regardless of what the Parliament of New Zealand does, you will be free to continue to wallow in your bigotry.

_________________
--James

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

15 Apr 2013, 4:07 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Your arguments are specious, and irrational, and that suggests to me that what you really are is a bigot.

Never fear, though. Your freedom of thought, belief and opinion will be untouched. Regardless of what the Parliament of New Zealand does, you will be free to continue to wallow in your bigotry.

Ah well, I knew they'd be a liberal nut-job in here somewhere :roll:

I know that I'm not a bigot, and that's good enough for me.

_________________
"He was slower than a nudist trying to climb a barbed wire fence" - Benny Hill

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Marriage equality logo Post Reply New Topic

Marriage equality logo