Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
Personally I don’t see why there is such a drive for marriage
Jackie might want to put her hands over her ears :), but every time I hear that from (presumably) straight folks I think there’s a wee bit of heterosexist privilege-denying up in the room. I’ll just post a mash-up of two rants on Emma's original threads, because I haven’t changed my mind any.
I know awful fags like me and Andrew Sullivan only want civil marriage (please note the emphasis) so we can be fabulous Trojan horses destroying the institution of marriage from inside the walls, but I actually deeply, profoundly respect marriage.
I look at people like my maternal grandparents (who were married for fifty eight years), and see that they stood up before their family and friends and their God and made a profound commitment to each other.
I don’t think I’m talking out of school in saying my Grandfather could be… well, prickly (folks say I’m more like him that either of us wanted to admit). But (apologies for getting all Athena from BSG here) they made a choice, and stuck it no matter how hard it got. If you can’t do that – won’t even try – how the hell do you end up with anything worth having?
Now, I mean absolutely no disrespect to folks like Russell and Fiona who (IMNSHO) are raising two absa-fraking-loutely fabulous young men, and are good folks without benefit of clergy. And as I’ve no desire to buy a shotgun and open shop as a gay wedding planner, I totally respect those (gay and straight) for whom “living in sin” or CUP-cakedom is working out fine.. I’ve got my own shit to deal with before I get judgemental on anyone else.
I think that’s what really scares the shit out of folks – and not only straight evangelical homophobes – who’ve massively invested in the idea of homosexuals as “the other”. Feckless, drug-addled promiscuous freaks who value nothing except the next high, the next orgasm, the instant gratification of every infantile appetite regardless of consequences.
I don’t want to pretend for a moment that getting married (or civil unionised) makes you any kind of saint. But it also stands as one hell of a rebuke to a lot of anti-gay stereotypes.
The only argument against I have any time for is “faggots and dykes together, ewwww!” because its at least honest.
And here’s how I respond to it:
“Take a look at my parents.
My father was a forty nine year old Maori Anglican widower who married a white Catholic woman quite literally young enough (27) to be his daughter.
Now, there are plenty of people who find inter-racial, or inter-faith marriage distasteful – the latter is still quietly discouraged by the Church. Some certainly weren’t shy in expressing their opinion that it was somewhat vulgar of my my father to marry a much younger woman just over a year after the death of his first wife.
The state, however, had no legitimate interest in any of the above.
All I ask is to be paid the same courtesy. And if you find the idea of my marrying my male partner so repulsive, you don’t have to look. No harm, no foul.”
And anyone who wants to throw divorce figures into the mix is going to get this snark:
[P]eople who are really that concerned about “the fabric of society” and “the sanctity of marriage”, really should turn their attention to the real threat:
No-fault divorce (and that means the Catholic Church should stop handing out annulments to Kennedys and Nicole Kidman too).
Just look at the numbers people, and it seems like a no-brainer to me that fewer people would dissolve their marriages if we reverted to a lengthy and very expensive process where you’re required to air all your spunk-stained linen in an open court. With details in the next day’s newspaper for all your friends and family (and your childrens’ school mates) to read, of course.
Then you can enjoy the sound of silence before the moralistic divorcees and adulterers start contorting themselves into rude and amusing shapes.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Craig Young,
However, there’s a difference between substantive equality issues like transgender legal equality and inclusive adoption reform that means that they need to precede any moves to introduce SSM proper.
Can I call "why don't we focus on the real issues?" bingo on that? I didn't see how adoption law reform precluded marriage equality when Nikki Kaye was talking that dog out for a walk, and you've not clarified matters any. Can't legislators walk and chew gum at the same time, or is there some secret quota for GLBT-friendly legislation in a parliamentary term?
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to izogi,
The only reason for a party to change its policy for voters is if those voters suddenly start making it an issue and saying they’ll switch support because of it.
Well, not quite - and honestly, I rather doubt that the GOP state senators who flipped their votes because thousands of registered Democrats pledged to flip their votes on a single issue. But they were hearing a lot from moderate and gay-friendly conservatives who were saying "this isn't about the homosexual agenda but about real harm being done to real human beings." I'll have to dig up a link, but I believe one poll showed a very strong correlation between support for marriage equality and people who knew openly gay people in their families or close social circles.
I would say never underestimate how powerful an "issue" is when it's not framed as a clash of abstract collective nouns but on a human, even intimate scale.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Tom Beard,
But I’d rather see the definition of civil unions extended (or some entirely new set of “unions” defined) to provide people with legal recognition of their relationships, and leave it up to them to choose whatever social, cultural or religious definitions of “marriage” suits them as a celebration of their bond.
Wait a moment, chap -- that's pretty damn close to the perfectly principled libertarian position that the State shouldn't be in the 'marriage business' at all. Until then, could I haz equality before the law as it stands while my 66 year old partner can still make it up the aisle without being converted into a Dalek first?
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Do you remember that early in the CUB debate there was a group called Lesbians Who Don't Want a Bar of It?
At the time I said that anyone who tried to pull a shotgun wedding on any dyke of my acquaintance would live to rue the day. Not long and comfortably, but the rue would be epic.
I guess I feel that *even if that were true*, it would still be an important thing to give the people who *did* want it the right.
+ infinity minus one, Lucy. To be frank, GLBT who don't give a shit about marriage equality are entitled to their view. But they really better think long and hard about why they're OK with being told that a bleeding obvious inequality in law is as good as it gets.
It's about as fuck-witted as saying "Hell, I don't like children so why don't we STFU about homophobic inequality in adoption law and move on to some real issues". It's a very real issue to plenty of GLBT people and if I want others to respect my non-Borgness I've got to repay the courtesy.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Emma Hart,
If you combine the Civil Union and Marriage (Gender Equality) Amendment Bill votes, you can certainly pick people who won’t be supporting gay marriage.
That's a fair point, but the marriage equality vote in New York only passed because four GOP state senators with less than encouraging track records crossed the floor. Since my psychic abilities are kind of crap, I wonder how deep the convictions are of many of the MPs who voted against the Civil Union Bill. Would a sound argument in favour plus having it drummed into their heads that the electoral risks range from minimal to non-existent change the landscape?
OTOH, when you have the incumbent MP for Not-Brokeback-Mountain and her Labour opponent fudging up a storm, that spinelessness arguably is as deep as it is irrational. What really made me angry about that column from Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Adern is that they're smart and decent people; and coming out unequivocally in favour of marriage equality is going to hurt you in Ponce-on-by and Gay Lynn? Really?
-
Here, also, is a list of how MPs voted on the Civil Union bill.
I don't know whether that's entirely reliable on marriage equality, since there was a thick (and IMO enormously distasteful) strain of "hell, you fags have marriage in all but name STFU already" -- which is not so much missing the point, but refusing to get in the same room with it.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Damian Christie,
The question is, would Labour have got more coverage with its own people doing the talking if they hadn’t have leaked this? I still think the answer is yes.
Well, with the usual caveats in place the latest One News poll would strongly suggest that a frightfully clever media strategy that makes folks "inside the Beltway" cum in their pants doesn't always translate into smart politics. If I was of a left-ward persuasion and entirely convinced that CGT was a good thing, of course I'd be bloody supporting the party whose leader was making the case while Phil Goff and David Cunliffe were doing some burlesque cock-tease routine for the Press Gallery.
-
So, basically, Joyce over-egged the pudding when there was more more than enough fluff and fudge to pin Labour on?
Tsk.
Let’s hope he doesn’t say the same thing in his columns or his blog, because that would be greatly misrepresenting these numbers and besmirching Treasury’s reputation as neutral, competent public servants.
Oh, Keith… you jest. When don’t Treasury have their competence and neutrality “besmirched” by someone who isn’t being told what they want to hear? My point, before the Craig-bot bullshit starts us, is not that I'm saying Farrar is right but just that 1) I suspect you need a rather thick skin if you work at Treasury and 2) you don't need to look too hard to find occasions where Treasury numbers should be taken with an unhealthy amount of salt.
-
OnPoint: It's real, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’d be more inclined to agree if …
You didn’t agree with Ganesh Nana and think David Farrar is a partisan hack who’s never seen a stat he can’t bad touch into gibberish? And sorry for being harsh here, Russell, but how exactly does a low-quality post on Farrar’s blog balance out, mitigate or give a pass to Nine to Noon failing to properly disclose a bleeding obvious COI?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 272 273 274 275 276 … 1235 Older→ First