- but now at least we can make that decision for ourselves.
My main reason for celebrating this is for the generations of Kiwis who will be born into a country where being gay isn't shown by legislation to mean 'less' or 'abnormal'. It might not make a difference right now for a kid who's being bullied or teased for being queer - but it will.
so much this!!
thanks for another gem, emma
Forgive the de-rail (re-rail?) but... I'm going back to the support-the-art-or-support-the-artist question when people reveal themselves as vile bigots or sex offenders... The Steubenville rape case (on top of the Jerry Sandusky / Joe Paterno case) is making me wonder what about sports? Is there anything fair in supporting a team which has supported/hidden someone who has e.g., raped or molested people? Especially when scholarships and professional fees are considered... Just so horrible to hear the victim-blaming in the Steubenville case, and so much of it has to do with the team support network. So, genuine question: Is supporting rugby or cricket teams the same thing as going to Ender's Game?
People in areas of higher deprivation are more mobile than people in wealthier neighbourhoods.
In reality it's the opposite: in these areas, there are fewer resources to help children travel to school (car costs, petrol costs, bus costs, safety and time issues with attending further schools and managing the road closures etc), and with the huge lack of suitable rentals in Chch, especially for those on a lower income, then the mobility simply isn't possible. These kids are the ones who are least able to move to another school. Not to mention they're more likely in these areas to have had drastic disruption to home life compared to those in the western Christchurch school zones, where damage wasn't as widespread or as severe. Teachers have been saying since 22/2/11 that there are major changes in children since the quakes. All this school change is just adding to the children's stress levels and likely affecting their ability to achieve.
I wonder (and this is a terribly cynical thing to say) if there was funding for alcohol research, but not sexuality research...
I read the report when you linked to it off Twitter, and I had the same question...
Thanks for the post, Emma, and for once again reminding people that being bisexual is valid and real and sometimes you end up quite excluded. I never would've gone to something that said "lesbian" at their age, because I knew I would be told I wasn't gay enough, or was hiding, or was just doing it to be 'cool' (cos, yeah, there are so many benefits to being bi/pansexual... oh no wait...) </endrant>
As for the binge-drinking -- I thought it was anything over 3 drinks a day, so this 5+ news makes me feel a lot healthier ;)
Anyway. Thanks again Emma.
Interesting... I wonder if the Canon Law could be altered in the future for non-gendered language based on a change to this:
Canon 1058 All can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law.
What I think is that the State should get out of the marriage business completely. Our society is forming families freely with many people coming together for a while and then breaking up again, some marrying and some not. Many parents aren't married at all and marriage is no longer a social requirement for sex and children legitimized by society.
By this reasoning, then anyone who wanted to get married would have to be religious. There go their religious freedoms. I am civilly married because I wanted to show to my partner my commitment, and because law does require certain evidence of partnership. When you leave NZ, de facto has different definitions and different rights. Even within NZ, there are functional, happy marriages that wouldn't meet the de facto criteria for various reasons (needing to live apart for study, wanting to keep separate accounts for everything etc). I wanted a marriage, but I also required the legal status, so a blessing of an areligious type with friends and family wouldn't cut the mustard.
BTW, my first marriage was Catholic. It took an extraordinary amount of time to find someone who was a) happy to marry me to a non-Catholic, b) happy to do so somewhere that wasn't a church, and c) actually available on the day. I lived in a large city at the time, and had a lot of help finding people, but could only find ONE. I was a baptised, Pakeha Catholic and mostly practising at the time, and in a large city. How much harder it would be to find one if it weren't an almost typical Catholic wedding blows my mind.
Finally got a reply from Nicky Wagner. Her response to the question "are you going to stand up for Christchurch Central and vote 'Yes'?" was
Hoorah! (forgive me if she's said this publicly in the last day or two and I didn't see it.)
I got a definite feeling (from the tumbleweed in 12 months of non-response) that this was the case -- by asking her to clarify, I'm not respecting the opinion of people who this does not in any way affect.
FWIW, I wrote to Nicky Wagner in July last year and got the response:
Thanks for your email. I have a pretty commonsense attitude to these issues. I absolutely support gay civil unions but I am aware that some people feel that marriage is between a man and a woman and I try to respect their feelings as well.
Re gay adoption. I do not believe that sexual orientation should be the main denominator in these decisions. Choosing adoptive parents is a very important and multi-faceted decision. Each individual case should be weighed up on its own merits.
I have written asking her to clarify what 'respect their opinions' means in terms of how would she vote if a gay marriage vote came along. I wrote once in July last year, twice in May this year, and once more (about to be twice) in July this year. No response. No surprise.