It’s 2014. Election year. There’s a myriad of wildly important issues facing the nation ranging from breathtaking overreach by our intelligence services, through to ongoing allegations of governmental corruption and the fact that our so-called “Rockstar Economy” is apparently far more Gary Glitter than it is Gary Numan.
Each of these issues, alone, deserves to have absolute screeds written on it, and many man-hours of compelling journalism, cutting analysis, and passionate campaigning put into bringing them to the forefront of voters’ minds.
Unfortunately, here in 2014, we’re seeing our governing party and some of its occasionally more sycophantic lobbyist friends still beating the drum about the issue of equality of marriage.
We passed this legislation to much fanfare and jubilation more than a year ago in 2013. By all accounts, the law’s working reasonably (yes, people getting divorced is a natural part and parcel of marriage law…), and I’m yet to encounter any of the instances of a heterosexual marriage being cheapened, or a religious figure being oppressed that we were promised as the result of equality of marriage passing into law. (there has been the occasional big gay rainbow, potentially over Northland at present, but I’m putting that down to the fact it’s the rainy winter season, rather than any expressions of divine providence.)
You’ll therefore forgive me for being somewhat shocked, surprised, and appalled at the specter of the National Party running an active campaign amidst South Auckland and Pasifika voters of opposition to equality of marriage.
National’s candidate in Mangere, Misa Fia Turner; and Sensible Sentencing Trust head honcho Garth McVicar may choose to disagree with me about this, but I really am struggling to perceive *any* good reasons whatsoever to repeal last year’s equality of marriage law. If there’s actually compelling evidence that equality of marriage is increasing crime rates … let him come out with the study (while also, in return, being stuffed full of reports about how more punitive incarceration regimens don’t reduce recidivism … coz we’re all about evidence-based policy now, apparently). And if Turner genuinely reckons that her community (or some small part thereof)’s values ought to trump the egalitarian sentiments of the broad mass of the rest of New Zealanders … well, it’s a good thing we live in a democracy, then, isn’t it.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister may possibly disagree.
We’re still not sure exactly what John Key said to that meeting in Mangere which apparently lead to the room at large assuming that he’d repeal equality of marriage if given a third term in office … but in concert with the local National candidate appearing on 3News to talk about how equality of marriage was against “our” values, and various news reports intimating that supposed opposition to equality of marriage was how Key managed to pack out a hall deep in Labour territory with 500 people; it seems reasonably plausible that he brushed under the rug his own vote in favour of marriage equality, and instead sought to emphasise the National Caucus’s record as being majority-opposed to equality of marriage.
I’m actually not sure which part of this is worse: that the Prime Minister is prepared to rhetorically erase one of the nicest things he’s ever done (admittedly, it’s a rather short list) for a few votes; or that there actually *are* a few votes to be prised from Labour in pandering to outdated social values. While I fully respect the right of voters to rank their priorities as they wish, and am well aware that occasionally the choice between Labour and National doesn’t look very real at all; I just cannot understand the sort of voter who decides that a vain whiff of hopeless rhetoric about repealing a perfectly fine law that will never come to fruition, is worth buying into the heartless patrician neoliberal economics which come with it.
This is particularly so when you consider the values being advocated for by the conservative-minded politico folk who’ve drawn my ire this week. Garth McVicar is morally opposed to marriage equality, apparently because “changing partners is quite regular“. Consider the relative merits of this statement for a moment. Surely one of the impacts of the passage of marriage equality will be a greater number of non-straight couples getting married, reducing the prevalence of the … somewhat extraneous consideration McVicar bases part of his argument upon.
When Misa Fia Turner talks about her “moral values”, while the news segment didn’t go into detail about what those values might be, I imagine she might come out with something about the importance of families, community and the church.
Well, by seeking equality of marriage, adoption and ordination (otherwise known as “settling down, starting a family, and going to church”) it certainly seems like many non-straight people ultimately share those very same values and aspirations that Turner would quite like to protect.
This, ultimately, is why I’m left confused and annoyed by people like Turner and McVicar. They come out strongly in defence of certain values, then try and trample all over some of the New Zealanders who’d arguably be most committed to embracing and embodying exactly the same values. And all for the vanishingly small (and shrinking) segment of the popular vote and/or relevance which genuinely still believes this to be an issue.
The best explanation for why people like these exist, is actually neurological. It turns out that the reason why conservatives seem knee-jerk opposed to changes which seem perfectly rational to the rest of us … is because their brains are wired up to have a more prominent reaction to being startled. Because of this, things like equality of marriage (or, for an earlier generation in places like the US, interracial relationships and eating in the same sandwich bar as other races) which represent new and potentially scary things to the mind of the conservative don’t tend to be dealt with as well, leading to these sorts of irascible reactions.
It’s unfortunate, but through the powers of biological essentialism, I guess we might be able to take some heart from the thought that the Bob McCoskries and Garth McVicars of this world weren’t actually acting on the basis of bigoted malice, but rather due to the imperatives of different neural architecture.
In any case, regardless of the explanation – there’s only one thing to do. In the words of Magneto, Gandalf, Han Solo, Blade Runner, and Indiana Jones … GET OVER IT!
“Curwen Ares Rolinson is a firebrand young nationalist presently engaged in acts of political resistance deep behind enemy lines amidst the leafy boughs of Epsom. He is affiliated with the New Zealand First Party; although his postings here should not necessarily be taken as indicative or representative of NZF’s policy or views.”
A lot of these social issues that cut to the quick for the old conservative and religious brigades can take a full generation to bed in. It would be almost unimaginable now, for homosexuality to actually be illegal again, and that will be the case with marriage equality in a few years’ time. We shall just have to be patient in the meantime, I reckon.
Same deal for smacking of children, I sometimes wonder if those who bleat the loudest are well past their child rearing days, and pretty much they (and I) no longer have any real right/need to comment on it.
My next one would be making it wrong for parents to be indoctrinating kids with religion. I have no problem with people having a faith or religion of the own free choosing, but it should be something left to a person to make their own mind up about, when they are mature enough to do so.
Uh, your own political party opposes gay marriage. You should try sorting that out.
NZ First is no more particularly against Marriage equalisation than were the Greens and Mana anti children when they opposed National’s Vunerable Children Bill. Nor were the Greens against gay adoption when they opposed Jacinda Adern’s proposed updates to the Adoption Act.
In those cases the Nay vote related to political technicalities, not the intent of the bills themselves. The same is true of New Zealand First which voted against Marriage equalisation only on the grounds that they have a platform of direct democracy referenda for such things as demonstrated by their willingness to put cannabis law reforms to a public referendum.
While it was perhaps clumsy, stop trying to make it into something it isn’t.
Rubbish – Asenati Lole Taylor is very clearly anti-marriage equality, as are several other MPs. NZ First is consistently homophobic in its policies, as they appeal to the senior citizen vote. They’ve even got the old conservative classic of a gay MP voting against gay rights! Winston Peters’ own speech of ridiculous waffle in the marriage equality debates clearly show that he also opposes marriage equality, and that he hides behind excuses like demanding a referendum to mask his bigotry. Human rights should never be referenda issues, and he should know that.
It is disingenuous to pretend that NZ First’s reasons for opposing marriage equality were procedural.
Asenati Lole Taylor can believe the moon is made of cheese for all it really matters; that doesn’t make it policy and more than Su’a William Sio’s homophobic outbursts make Labour policy anti-LGBT. That is simply illogical on your part. Do you not understand how democracy works or something?
Are you saying that older New Zealanders are homophobic? That’s ageist. And also kind of stupid because gay people and their friends don’t have the secret of eternal youth. A lot of the people you are dismissing would have supported the Homosexual Law Reform bill in 1986.
Admittedly the party doesn’t have a spokesperson fluent in LGTB issues and Winston flubbed it, but that proves nothing except that Winston and the rest of the party are out of their depth on LGTB issues. In case you haven’t noticed, New Zealand First has no desire to reverse the ruling now that it has passed.
Kia Ora
New Zealand First – true to the partys name and ideals – was seeking to put New Zealand and New Zealanders first.
Dealing with an increase of isolated and depressed gay men lately to me gay marriage has been the nail in the coffin for a once strong community that was organised and knew how to protest and protest hard. We were not only protesting for our own rights but for the rights of all oppressed minorities. Gay marriage has bought disunity and destroyed a powerful protesting force against right wing politics. We should have demanded that the straight world accept our relationships, not the right for us to join in the institution that kept us oppressed for over 900 years.
Bollocks. I’m gay and you certainly don’t speak for me. What on earth is the point of fighting for social justice if you don’t win some of the battles? This is the twenty-first century and marriage exists on the terms of the people getting married, not some biblical or heteronormative definition. I suspect you are just one of that remnant of gay men who are bitter because they’re now just as boringly conventional as everybody else. I’m afraid this is what acceptance looks like. Get over it. You don’t hear women bemoaning that they ever got the vote.
Comments are closed.