It perhaps did seem that way after the huge shitfight that it turned out to be, but I don't think that was apparent in advance.
I guess someone should have suggested (it wasn't done) that we think back to the Homosexual Law Reform Bill days - I wasn't out then, but from my understanding the shitfight that happened was worth every ounce of freedom... I guess in a way I would prefer to engage in the greater effort for equal civil rights, rather than reach a compromise.
Civil unions had the virtue of having been party policy for several years, so there could be no accusation of springing a surprise. And CUs had majority support in nearly every public poll, while marriage didn't (although attitudes were notably age-related on it).
True enough, although I personally would have argued along the lines of equal civil rights in marriage, not gay marriage.
I've said it often enough there's no such thing as gay rights / gay marriage, there's only equal civil rights for LGBTT members of society .
This distinction is lost on members of our community, I've observed, and so we find ourselves bogged down in 'gay rights' (meaning special rights), not equal civil rights for LGBTT citizens - which is much harder to deny.
I understand your wish for equality in the name of te Law but seriously, compromise is sometimes all we can wish for and at least in NZ one must accept that we must compromise for the entire nation.
I would agree with you, but sometimes, Rosa Parks doesn't want to sit at the back of the bus, you know?
And yes, of course, the good folks of Waterview Mt Albert must compromise for the good of the nation... I know that's NOT what you are meaning in this case - I'm sure you would mean that they shouldn't compromise in this case... ;)
Sofie there's legal equality, which we don't have, and there's social equality, which we also don't have. Some of the social inequality is reinforced by the legal inequality. The option to marry is a huge part of that. Adoption rights are another part.
Paul, CUs will be equal to marriage when we have the choice of them. While we're barred from marriage they remain unequal. I get your point about legal rights being conferred by either, but that's only part of the picture.
Thanks Mrs Skin for saying what I wanted to say, and in a much better way than I could have done so.
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
I don't believe she [Helen Clark] would have been willing to die in a ditch over same-sex marriage -- or risk a shit fight inside the party -- but I just wish she'd tried.
Amen to that. I remember thinking when the CU Bill was passed that for all the meetings, emails, energy, time, money, letters to the editor etc, we should have actually gone with the simple change to the marriage act (with consequential amendments in other acts). Doing so would have been far far simpler, easier, and miles more equal for the fags at the back of the marriage bus for the same amount of energy/shite expended over the CUB.
I know that some inside the Labour Party were sacred of attracting opprobrium about equal civil rights in marriage laws, and go figure, thought Civil Unions would attract less.
So here I am and I'm still unequal to my siblings. They can get married, or have a Civil Union, but I can't chose between those options - I'm restricted to having a Civil Union. HOW EQUAL IS THAT?
Putting on my Community Board Chair sunhat...
The buzzing will certainly continue at...
Super-City; a good idea or not?, an event hosted by the Eden Albert Community Board on Tuesday 19th May, 6.30pm at Owairaka District School Hall, 113 Richardson Road.
It should be interesting given that Rodney Hide is releasing the names of the men appointed to the Transistion Agency.
Swapping that sunhat for some private citizen sunnies....
I hear ya, and it's our lot in life to be fated to lead the 'straight', the 'narrow' and the 'moral' out of the darkness (where, goodness, many have (legal) err, interests shall we say) into the good life and light.
And that's a whole other lifetime.
although, on the other hand, an arguement could be made for that his sexuality does actually deny me that choice. Heterosexuality, patricarchy, white men's homophobia, drag queens and all that. But that's another day, and another thread....
He's straight and I'm a fag. Simple. He has a choice because of his sexuality, and I should have clarified - I don't have that choice because of my sexuality.
No, but at least I think you got the little irony that you and Fiona had and still have a genuine choice about whether to marry or not, that David and I sure don't have ... something I don't think some others quite got their heads around. Sorry for the semi-threadjack.
Lemme add to that. My brother, widowed, has a choice to either get married or civil unionised. I don't have that choice at all. Discriminatory? Absolutely. My brother's sexuality gives him that choice and denies me the same choice.
I could be really bitchy and note that a good number of the legislators who've decided (one may or the other) that I'm not fit to enter into a civil marriage with my same sex partner of 14 years, aren't exactly poster children for matrimony.
You know Craig, I never thought about this issue like this until you pointed it out. I absolutely agree. The hypocrisy is fucken unbelievable.
Another thing to add to the pile when I hear people telling me I can't marry my male partner...