Also this:

Go tell John Key that there is “clamour.”


Dear Colin Craig,

“New Zealanders are getting so tired of politically correct posturing. Political correctness doesn’t change how people think, it just prevents them speaking up. I am happy to speak up and go on record as one who would vote against this proposed bill.”

I’ve written before of my opinion of the “political correctness” canard, and Craig swans out with it as if it’s an actual argument.

“The marriage institution being a relationship between a man and a woman predates government. It is not the job of government to start re-defining marriage.”

And it’s not your job to be defining it. If the government’s going to have marriage written into law, then it must keep up with society’s changing definitions of what it means. The definition of marriage has changed more than conservative Christians care to remember or even believe.

Saying that marriage is an institution that belongs to a one cis-man, one cis-woman couple is like saying that writing belongs to right-handed people. The importance of right-handedness certainly predates government, and in modern times it seems rather silly to think of it as being any kind of privilege (it’s easy to forget that only a generation ago, children were being caned for writing with their left hands).

If Colin Craig does “not support an ever expanding state meddling in the affairs of it’s citizens”, then he’s contradicting himself by saying that we should therefore oppose marriage equality. But then, cognitive dissonance is something people like Craig have become rather skilled at.

You can marry your cousin, so long as he isn’t gay

North Carolina. Once again proving the adage that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

The state, where it’s legal to marry your cousin, recently went to the polls to vote on a constitutional amendment prohibiting not only same-sex marriage, but also civil marriage and domestic partnerships.

Last time the state made an amendment to their constitution about marriage, it said this:

All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the third generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.

While we have all the legal trappings that civil unions grant in New Zealand, we still don’t have the dignity conveyed by marriage or the respect it has in society, and we also still cannot adopt.  We’re forced to compromise with a “good enough” alternative.

North Carolina, however, seems to believe that teh gayz don’t deserve any recognition of their relationships and should forever be relegated to being second class citizens. Once again, they’ve used the cry of “religious freedom” as a cudgel against the rights and freedoms of others.

Hopefully it won’t be long before they realise the folly of their ways and look back at Amendment 1 as an embarrassing blight upon the history of their state.

Magda Szubanski gets it right

“The law means that you could be a serial killer and have killed all of your spouses and yet you would still be considered fit to marry.

“But if you are gay, then you are not worthy of these same rights.”

Szubanski came out publicly on Valentine’s Day and said the above, and she absolutely nailed it.

“We pay taxes, fight wars for this country, nurse you when you are sick, make you laugh, sing and dance for you, play netball for you, star in your movies, cook your meals, decorate your store windows.

“And, chances are, gay people designed whatever it is you’re wearing.

“All Australians, including gay Australians, should have exactly the same rights, including the right to love, marry and take care of our partners.”

Another video…

Here’s a beautiful video from Italy:

While homosexuality has been legal in Italy since 1887, they don’t currently recognise same-sex marriage. I believe that extending to everyone the right to marry whom they love, is one of the hallmarks of a decent society.

The description on the YouTube video finishes with

“Gli affetti non hanno sesso,
non ha senso discriminare amore.”

I plugged that into Google Translate to see what it says. I thought about getting a better translation, but I prefer the idiosyncrasies of the computer translation, which lend it a sort of cute je ne sais quoi:

“The affects are not having sex,
Love does not make sense to discriminate.”


In my last post, I wrote this:

I had originally written a spiel about “traditional marriage” being a relatively new concept, marriage as an institution failing and that they’ve found a scapegoat in the LGBT community, but that’s irrelevant. We already know that. And they won’t listen anyway.

I felt that what I had originally written was pointless in context, and so I deleted it, replacing it with the above text—there was no reason to make those points, because ultimately that wasn’t what it was about. Marriage and children is what they say it’s about, but it’s really about selfishly clinging onto entitlement.

However, I still think my original wording is important to say aloud, and it stands perfectly well out of context.

Anything that doesn’t fit into their narrow definition of the patriarchal, strictly cisgendered, father, housewife, >2.5 kids family, is an attack. That simply existing, or saying that it’s fine for gay people to exist, is enough for these people to react as if we were actually breaking into their houses and forcing them all to have gay sex in front of their children.

That they feel so threatened by the existence of same-sex marriage or even just gay people, to the point that they feel they must boycott companies that support equality, shows that they have no real concept on what society actually is. (Also note how they keep saying homosexual instead of gay or same-sex—as if using the medical term will make us less human).

It’s not their version of “the family” that brings forth children. Families take many forms, always have. To bring forth children, all you need is a sperm, an egg, a womb and a lot of love (and pain, money, etc.). The “traditional family” is a relatively new concept, and the legal definition of marriage was created on behalf of wealthy landowners to control their dynasties. The only reason it’s seen as a religious institution was because the Church of England was assigned to police it—they were part of the state, and therefore eligible for such duties.

Marriage has been redefined over and over again, and now we want to add same-sex marriage to the mix. Marriage, as it stands, is failing. More and more couples are co-habiting, and having children out of wedlock (those are not problems, but the “traditional families” crowd certainly think they are), and a half of all marriages end in divorce. 50%. And now, same-sex couples want the right to get married, and the bigots have found their scapegoat.

We need to break the spell of entitlement. Thankfully we are living in a world where people are becoming increasingly accepting and understanding of queer rights. Before long, the bigots will find themselves the embarrassing relics of history—at least until the next human rights battle comes along.