Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: How About Now?

196 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Danielle, in reply to BenWilson,

    I’ve only put the wild and wasteful ocean between myself and the in-laws – my own parents are available for babysitting.

    I think I have won the day here by having my... interesting... mother-in-law 7000 miles away and my own sainted mother literally next door.

    My own wedding was the least serious thing we could manage (Vegas, yadda) and I was surprised by how moving I found Standing Up There And Saying All That Stuff You Say. It was really unexpectedly meaningful. Fuck anyone who wants to deny people that, if they want it.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3628 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Oh darling, it's okay. Getting married is about privilege. I can well remember the early days of HIV and AIDS here when partners were unable to attend to their lovers in hospital, or even to arrange their funerals. It was all so dependent on the "goodwill" of the families. So yes, marriage is something definitively that some are allowed to do, and some are not. There are very few things that come under that category in this country, and the sooner we fix that the better. Because really? I can think of very few occasions I would enjoy more than to see you and your beloved tying the marriage knot. It's a day I look forward to, and a day worth fighting for.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to nzlemming,

    Clearly, it is time to deploy Phase 2 of the Homosexual Agenda.

    Oh, good. I need a new toaster oven.

    The rewards system has been updated. You have to get six times as many stamps, but you get an iPad in the end.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18708 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Danielle,

    It was really unexpectedly meaningful. Fuck anyone who wants to deny people that, if they want it.

    I had a catholic wedding, so some of the things that were said were just silly (me being agnostic and all). It was expensive and OTT. But it was also one of the happiest times of my life. Some people are born to marry.

    But there's nothing wrong at all with not wanting a bar of it either - it doesn't cast any aspersions on the depth of relationships formed. Nor does opting for divorce, even repeatedly. One of my mother's oldest friends opened my eyes to that. Now onto her 4th husband, she commented that she's simply not someone who can be unmarried, when asked about why she was bothering to marry again. To her it was profoundly important, and making a big occasion of the last one was a good idea, a wedding is just a big party after all, providing nice opportunities for people who haven't seen each other for years to catch up. It was a declaration to her children, as much as to anyone else, that she was serious about "George the 4th", as he is affectionately known, was moving on with her life with him, and the previous men (their actual fathers) were out of her romantic picture altogether, irreconcilably. Hard, but also true. They're much better disposed to George than they were to "Trev the 3rd", and I can't help but feel that her decision to make a big ceremony out of it helped somewhat with that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8315 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    you get an iPad in the end

    Sooner rather than later, if you go to a decile 9 school in Orewa.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16485 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to BenWilson,

    Ben:

    Just to clarify: I’m not suggesting we set the clock back to 1857, but I’m rather surprised that the brave defenders of “traditional marriage” don’t. I’d also be cynical enough to suggest that a good proportion of them don’t do so because 1) doing down the fags is a more potent and profitable wedge issue than saying Teddy Roosevelt was right*, and, 2) it’s funny how many folks in the trad-marriage crowd don’t exactly occupy the moral high ground when it comes to divorce, adultery and spawning bastards.

    If you’re a moral conservative with a grain of principle, it seems bleeding obvious to me that no-fault divorce (and the erosion of the social and legal stigma attached) is more of a threat to “the institution of traditional marriage and the family” than marriage equality.

    That said, I’d like to apologise to anyone who felt I was making light of a traumatic experience in their own lives. It was not my intention, and am sincerely and unconditionally sorry for any offence I caused.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11864 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    If you're a moral conservative with a grain of principle, it seems bleeding obvious to me that no-fault divorce (and the erosion of the social and legal stigma attached) is more of a threat to "the institution of traditional marriage and the family" than marriage equality.

    Not so sure about that. I'd rather say that marriage equality poses no threat at all, and no-fault divorce is actually good for it, because high cost divorce creates perverse outcomes for families - prolonged misery and all that goes with it, neglect, domestic violence, depression and suicide, spousal murder, sudden abandonment, secret adultery etc.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8315 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Actually I want to refine that further. Marriage equality is not "no threat". It's also good for marriage and the family. Happy people who love each other make better families. Children of happy gay marriage have a great chance to be happy children. Children of happy non-marriage are the same. Living your life seeking happiness is a contagious attitude, as is repression and unhappiness.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8315 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    In terms of adoption law reform and transgender equality taking precedence (i) the trans community has had to wait too damned long for it as it is and (ii) inclusive adoption reform is the last same-sex parenting reform to be undertaken, as well as the last piece of substantive LGBT equality reform. When the introduction of same-sex marriage proper does occur, it'll be defused and merely a matter of formal, ritual and ceremonial equality.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 370 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Craig Young,

    In terms of adoption law reform and transgender equality taking precedence (i) the trans community has had to wait too damned long for it as it is and (ii) inclusive adoption reform is the last same-sex parenting reform to be undertaken, as well as the last piece of substantive LGBT equality reform. When the introduction of same-sex marriage proper does occur, it’ll be defused and merely a matter of formal, ritual and ceremonial equality.

    Okay. I think this is a case of "putting the worst inequalities first" versus "doing the easy stuff first". Neither of which approach is "wrong". And these are all things we want done.

    My take has been that this (same-sex marriage) is both easy and popular (relatively). And doing it, as someone has said previously in this thread, makes doing the hard things easier. Whereas if you say you have to do the hard things first, the easy stuff never actually gets done. And it sucks, it absolutely sucks, to be basically saying to people that when it comes to their personal happiness and security (and even basic safety) they should wait.

    The adoption thing I think is more complex because the entire Adoption Act needs revamping, for a whole bunch of different reasons, some of which are nothing to do with LBGT rights.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4340 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Emma Hart,

    basic safety

    Haven't been following closely, but perhaps you could point me to an explanation about this angle.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16485 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    the median age of marriage at divorce is 13.7 years

    Interesting. Any figures on how that has changed over the last few decades?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16485 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Sacha,

    Interesting. Any figures on how that has changed over the last few decades?

    Its gone up, from 12.4 years in 1988. Check out the tables here.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1630 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The rewards system has been updated. You have to get six times as many stamps, but you get an iPad in the end.

    Black or are they doing a special colour?

    The adoption thing I think is more complex because the entire Adoption Act needs revamping, for a whole bunch of different reasons, some of which are nothing to do with LBGT rights.

    I think it's also going to be a lot harder politically because a lot of homophobic people can be convinced that two people of the same sex getting married only affects the couple - no one else. Adopting children is going to raise all sorts of unfortunate fears about different parents and raising kids to be 'queer' and whatnot.

    Like Emma I think there are steps, and as long as we keep working on achieving all of them, we're doing what can be done.

    Thanks to Tansy for posting that facebook link too.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6162 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Okay. I think this is a case of “putting the worst inequalities first” versus “doing the easy stuff first”. Neither of which approach is “wrong”. And these are all things we want done.

    It's also a case of Craig not really caring that much about marriage equality, as opposed to adoption law reform and transgender equality. Which isn't "wrong" either. But just as legislators can walk and chew gum at the same time, the GLBT community aren't a Borg Collective and "we" can advance on more than one issue at the same time?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11864 posts Report Reply

  • StuartBradbury, in reply to izogi,

    The significant differences are ... by age. Over 55 is the only category where support drops below half*, to 44% in favour and 49% opposed.

    -- Doesn't that demographic pretty accurately describe our parliamentarians? ... and any vote on this issue is a 'conscience vote' ... so isn't the result predictable?

    Auckland • Since Jul 2011 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart, in reply to StuartBradbury,

    The significant differences are … by age. Over 55 is the only category where support drops below half*, to 44% in favour and 49% opposed.

    – Doesn’t that demographic pretty accurately describe our parliamentarians? … and any vote on this issue is a ‘conscience vote’ … so isn’t the result predictable?

    Well, not all parliamentarians are over 55. Quite a few aren't. And even assuming that the ones who do split precisely along those lines, figures like "60% of the country in favour" are pretty convincing to those who might be against it - if they have any intention of actually representing their constituents, that is. I honestly don't think the result would be as predictable as you assume.

    Amherst, MA • Since Nov 2006 • 2093 posts Report Reply

  • Phil Lyth,

    The ZM Morning Crew's SAME SEX & THE CITY

    On July 24th gay marriage will become legal in New York State, so now we want to send the first New Zealanders to New York City to get married!!

    So a radio station is running a contest to send a gay couple to NY to get married. Tell me again why our Parliament won't change the Marriage Act?

    Wellington • Since Apr 2009 • 443 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Phil Lyth,

    Hell, I'm still trying to understand why four right-wing Republican NY state senators (and Dubya's solicitor-general!) get it and our Parliament doesn't. I just know this for sure: If Australia passes marriage equality legislation before we do, the shame will be unendurable. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11864 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Lucy Stewart,

    I honestly don’t think the result would be as predictable as you assume.

    Quite - and I think it's a pertinent factoid that the first serious (if flawed) attempt at homosexual law reform was in the name of Venn Young - who was fifty five at the time. In the US, the highest profile and most articulate conservative supporter of marriage equality is 70 year old Theodore Olson.

    I've certainly seen little evidence that there's some straight line causual relationship between age and homophobia; it's a wee bit more complicated than that.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11864 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I’ve certainly seen little evidence that there’s some straight line causual relationship between age and homophobia; it’s a wee bit more complicated than that.

    Yeah, there's a lot of space between "is against gay marriage on a survey" and "homophobic", which can be filled with some quite complex (and potentially changeable) views. And, hey, 44% for isn't exactly an overwhelming rejection in that age group. I'd be entirely willing to lay money that if you'd surveyed those same people (the +55s) when they were the +25s that you wouldn't have found nearly as much support.

    Amherst, MA • Since Nov 2006 • 2093 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    I'd just like to remind those of our younger viewers that 55 isn't that old. Ahem.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Jackie Clark,

    Unless you're Maori or Pacific men, where it's sometimes treated as a threshold age in social policy - worth remembering when people talk about raising pension eligibility to 67.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16485 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark, in reply to Sacha,

    Well yes, I had a conversation with one of our Kuia – who is, it should be said 5 years my junior where she remarked that she thought it would be okay to die at 60, because it was goodly age. I was gobsmacked.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to BenWilson,

    Considering how damned easy it is to get married, practically all you have to do is say “I do” and spend a few minutes signing some papers, I don’t think the divorce ceremony should be any harder.

    Correct me if I am wrong but the whole “till death us do part” bit is supposed to mean something when you say “I do” otherwise it is a bit pointless, innit?.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4669 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.