Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm still going to insist that we force all Catholic priests, from the Pope on down, to gay marry.
Oh geez, I dunno if I could handle a spouse who was that high-maintenance.
-
Only legally (and of course, you can challenge that, though the avenues for such in NZ are limited).
Indeed. And one could, genuinely and on religious grounds (Noah, Ham, etc) object to being forced not to discriminate on racial grounds.
-
As I said above, I'd like to see that become the legal norm for everybody and allow marriage to be something that is done within people's own personal context.
heh, simul-post. I should emphasise that this, at least, is a position I respect. I assume you'll be voting for that, too?
-
From my perspective same-sex marriage is an ontological impossibility.
Given same-sex marriages already exist, they're not any kind of impossibility, ontological or otherwise. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'not real marriage!' but that doesn't change the reality.
I don't see it as a matter of justice or rights because I have different axioms about marriage.
Which, again, doesn't stop it absolutely being a matter of rights.
And I expect that society will not force the dominant ideology upon religious worship or expression.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, is forcing the Catholic church to perform or enter gay marriages. Nor does the existence of gay marriage interfere with the practice of religion. This is a 'red herring', which is a polite way of saying 'utter bollocks'.
Nobody is trying to take anything away from you, or even affect you in any way.
-
Was that the same photographer who took a photo of my cleavage? Hmmm?
Why yes, yes it was. The same photographer who, on our joint insistence, climbed on a chair so she could take the best photo of your cleavage.
So begins Emma's campaign to become a Green MP...
Oh honey, you think Christine Rankin's had a bad week, you do not want to find yourselves explaining my past.
-
But politicians, being risk-averse, will assume they think the worst unless enough people tell them otherwise. Which is why its important to let those newer MPs know that you want gay marriage - to build the legislative majority for the future.
There's my point. I knew I'd left it lying around somewhere.
-
Doh! Was thinking step father.
Phew, you had me really worried there for a minute, Bart. Position of authority as a child and all that. I was 21 when I got married. (Which BTW didn't seem young at the time and now seems quite mad.)
You haven't seen my ex-FIL, Bart. Isabel has.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
Yeah... I'm going to have to go with whoever fields the prettier team on the night. No, wait, in order to not look shallow we call that 'playing the more attractive rugby', right?