Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Are We There Yet?

811 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 33 Newer→ Last

  • Emma Hart,

    I'm not sure that they are irrelevant.

    Yeah, bad choice of words there. (Can I admit now that I'm running on three hours sleep?) I guess what I mean is, while all those things may be ideologically connected, and people probably have different points on that continuum where they get off the Okay Train, all we're asking for right now is same-sex marriage. Arguments against it must be based on same-sex marriage, not donkey-sex marriage or whatever. The journey to a hang-up free utopia comes one step at a time.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Tess Rooney,

    I still don't get why wnyone would be desparate to get married, but that's just me.

    Personally I wanted to get married because it was an outward, public sign of commitment. A way of ritualistically joining two people together for life. I was pregnant 6 weeks after getting married, so for us, marriage was always about children and having a family, it wasn't really about us as a couple.

    In my own head I described it as "putting your money where your mouth is".

    Since May 2009 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Jolisa,

    She said: "I'm going to the jeweller's to have one of my necklaces fixed, do you want me to look for a pair of rings for you?"

    Funny. We got rings -- which made the parents very excited -- but had no ceremony of any kind.

    Some time later came the marriage (of convenience, as in, it's convenient not to get deported, and extremely convenient to have a spousal green card-- flashback here with, as it happens, lots of useful links), and we haven't worn the rings in years.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 1411 posts Report Reply

  • Tess Rooney,

    If you're a Catholic, and you already have a civil marriage (which the church doesn't recognise) can you marry another Catholic as well?

    As far as the Church is concerned you're married civilly. So the Church wouldn't countanence you breaking the civil law.

    However a friend of mine just got married in the Church to a man who had been civilly married and divorced. Had her husband's first marriage been in the Church, she would have been unable to marry him, as the Church would consider that first marriage to be for life, irrelevant of the civil divorce. (Unless the first wife had died.)

    By solemnising our marriage it means I will never be able to divorce and remarry in the Catholic Church. If I divorced and civilly remarried I would be unable to receive Holy Communion.

    Since May 2009 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I'm getting a really mixed set of pop culture references popping up in my head now:

    Wedlock - a cross between a steam engine and a padlock...

    yrs
    E. L. Wisty
    Dagenham

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 5071 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Quote from waaaay back on page 3

    Isabel? Where are you?

    She has this theory that you should be able to have the big party, the fancy dress, and get all the presents, but not actually get married. A sort of Wedding-less Reception.

    We've thought that one out. We'd call it Holy Nottrimony or be really sneaky and tell everyone we're getting <airquotes>married</airquotes>

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    and people probably have different points on that continuum where they get off the Okay Train, all we're asking for right now is same-sex marriage. Arguments against it must be based on same-sex marriage, not donkey-sex marriage or whatever

    Actually, for a lot of people a civil union is a better option than marriage, so it's hard to determine which comes first in a continuum. In terms of their relatedness, Craig established it explicitly and I was commenting on that.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7386 posts Report Reply

  • Jolisa,

    Now here's a lovely wedding, perfectly by the book and yet guaranteed to outrage a few. (Warning: judgemental comments below the article, albeit mainly on the question of lipstick shades).

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 1411 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Actually, for a lot of people a civil union is a better option than marriage, so it's hard to determine which comes first in a continuum.

    At the time CUs passed, yeah. From here, the options are only:

    - Civil Unions only

    - Civil Unions AND the extension of marriage to same-sex couples.

    Regardless of which form each individual couple finds personally suits them, having the choice is surely better than not having the choice.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    As far as the Church is concerned you're married civilly. So the Church wouldn't countanence you breaking the civil law.

    While being quite willing to break the civil law itself by impugning the validity of lawful marriages...

    (That clause is ridiculous and should go, BTW. But that doesn't make the Catholic Church any less hypocritical or arrogant)

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1661 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    We've thought that one out. We'd call it Holy Nottrimony or be really sneaky and tell everyone we're getting <airquotes>married</airquotes>

    Thanks to the relationships act, you're effectively hitched after two years anyway. So you have a perfect excuse for a hitching party...

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1661 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    That clause is ridiculous

    Wow, that's quite bizarre.

    While we're vaguely on the subject, can anyone tell me why I can't legally marry my father-in-law?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    Or convince them that marriage is a state arrangement...

    Hmmm - that arrangement seems familiar. Oh, that's right - it's what we have now.

    I agree that the arrangement is familiar. However, it's the convincing that we need to get right. If someone wants to preserve their <insert religion here> marriage, then if they see it as being an enhanced version of the state marriage, then it it is possible that they will also see a pure state marriage as something less than their preferred religious marriage.

    Perhaps if the bigots could say to themselves: "well the gays only have an ordinary marriage, we have the authentic one because it is endorsed by our religion" then perhaps they'll chill out about the whole gay marriage thing, making it both easier and quicker to change the law.

    Me, I take my cue from the Homosexual Law Reform palaver - and I reckon it's a generation, not 10 years, before society moves on.

    At least you can count on the Greens to support same-sex marriages, so that's a reliable starting-point at least.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 455 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    <airquotes> Holy Nottrimony </airquotes>

    I'm unsure if Getting Notted
    is the right solution either...

    but if it's just the presents ya want
    maybe Getting Stuff-ed
    could gain some traction

    or Holy Parsimony

    or even Holy Justthemoney : )

    Yrs
    Sally Brant

    ps love the idea of

    <airquotes>

    kinda like "giving an idea the fingers..."

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 5071 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    married ... commitment ... for life ... pregnant ... children ... family ... couple

    And you have thus summed up all the reasons why marriage isn't for me :-) I'm not sure why any of those would require a state- or church-sanctioned ceremony, but each to their own.

    </ageing roue>

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1039 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm putting my money on five years at the outside, providing the yapping never goes away and the issue hangs around rather than vanishing into the background.

    I suspect the determining factor will be how the next Labour government still feels bitten by 'progressive social issues' such as Civil Unions, legalising prostitution, and section 59 reform. Some in the caucus might be tempted to avoid such issues at least for the first term.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6208 posts Report Reply

  • Tess Rooney,

    While being quite willing to break the civil law itself by impugning the validity of lawful marriages...

    LOL, hardly. For Catholics and Orthodox marriage is one of the seven sacraments given by God.

    1. baptism
    2. communion
    3. confession
    4. confirmation
    5. holy orders (being ordained a priest)
    6. marriage
    7. anointing of the sick

    Just because someone is married civily it doesn't equate to the religious sacrament of marriage. A Catholic marriage is a relgious act, that is also civily recognised.

    To have a sacramental marriage a certain ritual needs to be performed, with a specific liturgy. Just because a civil marriage isn't sacramental doesn't mean that the Church is saying it is "unlawful". That's just a silly argument that you're trying to make there. Although to be fair you probably have no idea about Catholic sacraments.

    Since May 2009 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    While we're vaguely on the subject, can anyone tell me why I can't legally marry my father-in-law?

    That's easy.... because you are already married :)

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Some in the caucus might be tempted to avoid such issues at least for the first term.

    Inserting my tongue in my cheek for a moment, we'll do it the same way we get everything else done: a Greens Private Member's Bill.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Tess Rooney,

    If someone wants to preserve their <insert religion here> marriage, then if they see it as being an enhanced version of the state marriage, then it it is possible that they will also see a pure state marriage as something less than their preferred religious marriage.

    Yup, Idiot's right. A civil marriage is not the same as a sacramental marriage in the tradition of the Catholic Church. You are describing the situation as it stands at present. Hence disappointed Catholic parents when their children get married on a beach by a civil celebrant - happened to a lady in my prayer group.

    Since May 2009 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    can anyone tell me why I can't legally marry my father-in-law?

    I started writing a generic Canterbury inbreeding joke but it felt too mean.

    But is that actually a law? Aren't there also a bunch of laws about who a window cannot marry?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Aren't there also a bunch of laws about who a window cannot marry?

    Awesome (I REALLY hope there are actually)

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1721 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    What is marriage? For us it was just about getting all our favourite people together, making a promise in front of them, and then celebrating the occassion.

    Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it too... CU werent available when my wife and I got hitched, but it would have been perfectly acceptable to me... I'm not so convinced I could have sold it to some in her family though? And its this fact that some people do perceive marriage and civil union as not the same that affirms my belief that same sex marriage should be available for those who want it.

    but...

    So while I keep my "marriage = meh" attitude I don't get any serving platters or salad tongs or money towards overseas trips. Total gip.

    Total gip except for the fact that the wedding and reception typically costs more to put on than the value of the gifts received... :) (but thats not why you do it)

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    But is that actually a law?

    It's in the Schedule of Forbidden Marriages. All the incest ones, and then specific bans against marrying your in-laws.

    I just, y'know, father-in-law looked like Sean Connery. It always struck me as unfair that if I married his son, and then said son and his mother were involved in some kind of terrible tragic accident, Iain and I not be allowed to console each other legally.

    (I am so dead. My family reads here.)

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Awesome (I REALLY hope there are actually)

    I'm more worried that a sandwich would marry a bear (anti-gay phone company part 3)

    also: crud.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 33 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.