Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Submission Pun Goes Here

33 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Phil Lyth,

    If, like me, you’re considering submitting in person, that list of names may give you pause.

    Please, don't be scared off from the idea of making a submission in person - or even by videolink if the committee does not travel to Christchurch (and I hope it does.)

    My experience is that MPs on select committees will always give a fair hearing to novices, people who are making first submission. Certainly if anyone tried to be hard on a submitter, I think it likely that Trevor would be tearing the MP a new one.

    [ On the other hand, if a person chooses to go hardout with a direct attack on an MP or party on their first submission, don't be surprised if there is some comeback.]

    And be aware that MPs can and are swapped in to select committees for particular items of business. There is no guarantee that the six permanent members will be the ones there on the day you make your submission.

    If it helps, remember they all put their trousers on one leg at all time. (This thought on another post got some commenters taking off on a tangent.)

    Wellington • Since Apr 2009 • 458 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Your submission sounds perfectly sensible to me. I'm sure they will be convinced on that alone . Well maybe not, but it should be that simple. Hope it is full of more submissions in support just like that. Fingers crossed.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Philip McCabe,

    My wife and I have been married for 38 years. We were married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest in a ceremony we devised ourselves. We chose the church because it was near where as penniless newlyweds we were to have the party and we chose the priest because he was known to both of us as a friend. Marriage is a loving and committed relationship and we have many friends who are in the same position. The proposed new law will make no difference to any of us and will make no significant difference to our New Zealand community.It will simply confirm the notion of fairness that underpins our society and help to recognise our diversity.

    Philip McCabe, Wellington

    Wellington • Since Dec 2011 • 2 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Phil Lyth,

    My experience is that MPs on select committees will always give a fair hearing to novices, people who are making first submission.

    Oliver's post at TLG is quite reassuring on this as well:

    Being heard in person can be an extremely daunting experience. The committee knows that, and will bend over backwards to make you feel comfortable.

    It's still a Bit of a Thing, exposing personal pain to people who may be entirely unsympathetic.

    Hope it is full of more submissions in support just like that.

    This one is absolutely harrowing. It won't be the only one.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Emma Hart,

    This one is absolutely harrowing. It won’t be the only one.

    Kia Kaha! to all, as discussed earlier on Capture thread, sharing helps.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    Great submission Emma.

    When I did undergrad philosophy there was a lot of talk of “this is the argument that wears the trousers”, a sexist and also rather peculiar metaphor! One of my friends suggested “the argument that wears the overalls” might be an improvement.

    I don’t really know how legwear comes into it, but if any argument has the overalls on, it’s yours.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Lilith __,

    I don’t really know how legwear comes into it, but if any argument has the overalls on, it’s yours.

    Overalls like... these?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Overalls like… these?

    Yes! Exactly those. ;-)

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Isn't that really a romper? For, you know... romping?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Danielle,

    Isn't that really a romper?

    I prefer to think of them as oversomes.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Islander, in reply to Emma Hart,

    This one is absolutely harrowing. It won’t be the only one.

    One of young women I picked tobacco with, in Mot' in the 1960s, was beaten up by her very butch partner - and much more severely beaten up her father to whom she went for help...I dont know what happened to her, but I feared for her.

    While I shall rejoice when the bill becomes law - as I rejoiced when homosexuality was decriminalised and when civil unions became available- it obviously wont affect me. But I have been aware since my early teens that the majority of humans consider me and my kind abnormal at best and totally unnatural at worst...I dont self-harm or anything like that. I just make sure I dont get into conversations that are *face-to-face* about sexualities & differences. Because I know I can get very angry when the bigoted & ignorant make assumptions and/or sneer-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Certainly if anyone tried to be hard on a submitter, I think it likely that Trevor would be tearing the MP a new one.

    Not actually Trevor’s job. Ruth Dyson is the committee chair and 1) she’s had more than enough experience in the value of having a touch of dominatrix when it comes to wrangling committees, and, 2) I’ve heard she’s runs a pretty tight ship. “Don’t be a dick” goes both ways, after all.

    This one is absolutely harrowing. It won’t be the only one.

    Quite. It’s vital, as I’ve said before, that not only the “no” camp but the fence-sitters on issues like this never forget this isn’t some lofty abstraction. There are real lives and real families here which the Colin Craigs and Bob McCoskries would rather not talk about. And which they sure as shit don’t want to see reflected in the committee report.

    Because I know I can get very angry when the bigoted & ignorant make assumptions and/or sneer-

    Tautoko to the max, Islander. That’s why I’m going to let my sub rest for a couple of days because there’s a lot of anger in the (too long) draft I did over the weekend. While a nice purgative vent might make me feel better, being effective (and putting a more conservative pro-equality POV in the pot) is more important for the cause.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Great submission. If you do talk to them in person the protocol is that you can assume they have read it – and they will have it in front of them on their laptops. So you can use this opportunity (5 mins in most select comms that I have been to lately) for emphasis or to make extra points.The members then have about 10 mins to ask for elaboration, and if it is well chaired most MPs will take the opportunity. Remember, they are just ordinary people – paid by us to represent us - and in my experience they are quite respectful of the democratic principles of the select committee process. It is quite likely that the line up will change on the day depending on who is available. (On the other hand there might be a queue of MPs wanting to be substitutes.)

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3196 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    That’s why I’m going to let my sub rest for a couple of days

    That's often a very good idea, beca... I'll stop right there.

    I wrote mine in a bit of a hurry. I hinted at the argument that in my ideal world "marriage" could be deconstructed and extended to a range of different relationships, but concentrated on the simple equality argument. At the moment, one (adult, human) couple can get married and another cannot, purely based on their sexuality, and that is unjust. Extending civil marriage to include same-sex couples is a simple way to right this unjustice and make that world just that little bit fairer.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Phil Lyth,

    Not actually Trevor’s job. Ruth Dyson is the committee chair

    Well yes. Must confess to a touch of laziness, knowing that Trevor is more readily identified by the general public as being willing to engage when necessary.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2009 • 458 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Tom Beard,

    That’s why I’m going to let my sub rest for a couple of days

    That's often a very good idea, beca... I'll stop right there.

    People's refractory periods vary. There's no shame in it.

    I hinted at the argument that in my ideal world "marriage" could be deconstructed and extended to a range of different relationships

    After consideration, I removed a section about adoption and parenting rights. Best, I thought, to keep it focused.

    I should add, too, in case people aren't reading Oliver's post: it is worth making a submission that just says "I support this bill". Those submissions are counted, those numbers will be reported.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    If you do talk to them in person the protocol is that you can assume they have read it

    Yup - I was part of the oral evidence on the Young Nats submission to the ERA. Don't think we changed Sue Bradford's mind one micron, but it was most endearing that she seriously engaged with the results of a lot of work with the membership.

    Remember, they are just ordinary people – paid by us to represent us – and in my experience they are quite respectful of the democratic principles of the select committee process.

    Couldn't agree more. And I'm not being entirely bitchy in saying the usual absence of television cameras tends to chill out even the most OTT question time drama queens. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Martin Roberts,

    When I was at university, I married my then-boyfriend so that he could have access to a student allowance.

    Most of my friends who have gotten married did so after living together for many years, and co-incidentally had kids real soon afterwards. A church can pretend that these couples are (belatedly) conforming to True Marriage (TM), but same-sex marriage explodes that illusion and is thus more threatening. Illusion, however, is not reputed to set us free.

    Marriage as practised in the rest of NZ has long since diverged from the ideals many feel are threatened by this Bill. I have found it constructive to point this out in my church communities.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 93 posts Report Reply

  • Scott A,

    I can sometimes go on a bit when I submit to a committee, but this time I just wanted to get to what is, for me, the point:

    I am writing this submission in support of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

    The Government Administration Committee is surely going to receive many submissions on this bill, some very emotive, painful, angry or fearful.

    I wish to keep mine short. I wish to simply let the Committee know that it is time. It is time for equal rights with regards to marriage to be extended to all adult New Zealanders, regardless of the gender of the person the love and wish to make a formal, legal commitment to.

    No one will be hurt by this legislation being passed. Many many people will be benefited.

    I sincerely plead for the Committee to do what is, simply, right. Right for all the men and women who have lived in fear and frustration by not being able to exercise a right simply because of who they fell in love with.

    Thank you.

    The wilds of Kingston, We… • Since May 2009 • 132 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    All the best for your submission Emma.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Martin Roberts,

    Most of my friends who have gotten married did so after living together for many years, and co-incidentally had kids real soon afterwards.

    Indeed. If they got married at all. Few are the people who thought it was wise to get into a permanent live-in-with-sex, with someone they had neither lived with nor had sex with. The reasons for this are so obvious that you'd need years of training/indoctrination not to see them.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Most of my friends who have gotten married did so after living together for many years, and co-incidentally had kids real soon afterwards.

    And does anyone want revert to the bad old good old days where a landlord could perfectly legally refuse to rent their property to a couple without a wedding certificate, or a mixed-gender group?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And does anyone want revert to the bad old good old days where a landlord could perfectly legally refuse to rent their property to a couple without a wedding certificate

    Let alone the days when a bank made you get married before it would grant a mortgage.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Emma Hart,

    oversomes

    because they are over some of her

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Aston,

    Thanks Emma for the prompt to put in a submission here is mine just submitted.

    I am a marriage celebrant and also run a social agency, Big Buddy, matching male mentors with fatherless boys in life long father figure relationships.
    In the ten years I have doing this work I am humbled by what I see as an innate human need to care for each other and to be care for. It’s a primary part of our humanity and the very fabric of the web we call community.
    Marriage between two people is in my view a reflection of this innate need to care and a contributes very strong thread in our web of community.
    I can see no evidence, have no experience that tells me that marriage need be only between different sexes for it to take it’s place in this web of human caring. Gender makes no difference to love and love has no interest in gender.
    So to preclude same sex couples from formalizing their commitment to love and caring is both irrational and at odds with our common humanity, our need to care and our need to strengthen the web of community. And no, a civil union does not serve this need in a truly egalitarian way.
    We are all in this together, we need to build and strengthen the web of community together, in whatever ways we can find. My submission is by allowing same sex couples exactly the same opportunity of marriage as everyone else we can only but strengthen community and in the process build a better world for generations to come.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 509 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.