Gay Marriage Is for Suckers

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2012-07-26 08:06

Gay Marriage Is for Suckers

Well, I guess we all knew that and embraced it, but what I mean is, the fact that a Labour MP's Private Member's Bill that would allow for the bestowing of the status of "marriage" on gay partnerships has been drawn from the ballot and may well be passed by Parliament (heck, Barack Obama would support it) is a double-edged sword.

The best thing that can happen for relationships, gay or straight, is for the state to butt out of them. The state's only role should be to enforce any contracts entered into, in the event of a dispute. The underlying principle here is the one I articulated in The Free Radical at its inception: all adult interaction should be voluntary.

As things stand, since 2002, all relationships of any kind, gay or straight, de facto or formalised as marriage, are governed by the Property Relationships Act, which is an abomination:

This Act provides legal rules on how property should be divided when a marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship ends. These rules are based on some general principles:

*men and women have equal status, and their equality should be maintained and enhanced;

*non-financial contributions, such as caring for children and running the home, are equal in value to financial contributions;

*each spouse or partner has made an equal contribution to the relationship and therefore relationship property should be shared equally between them;

*whether one spouse or partner may be more responsible than the other for the break-up of the relationship is not relevant to the division of the property although in exceptional circumstances the Court may take the spouses' or partners' conduct into account in deciding how the division of property will be carried out;

*a just division of relationship property takes account of the economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses or de facto partners arising from their marriage or de facto relationship or from the ending of their marriage, civil union, or de facto relationship;

"De facto" is defined as any relationship of more than three years' duration. This is El Dorado for gold-diggers and the politically correct. It warps the whole culture. Here's how: kids come out of the state education system stupefied. They believe that the world owes them a living; it is not for them to make their own, since that requires concentration for longer than a minute. They see other people as means to their ends, as meal-tickets. Relationships are simply a delivery mechanism: if they can hang in there for three years, half of their victims' assets are theirs. The culture is thus impregnated with the soul of socialism.

Yes, couples can write their own contracts which trump this legislation, and they should—whether there's such a thing as "gay marriage" or not. My point is: gay marriage doesn't make everything all right. I say this as the person whose private ear-bashing of Heather Roy enabled the Civil Unions legislation to pass. Everything remains all wrong: Nanny State's tentacles slither and suffocate in the most intimate circumstances of our lives. Whether gay marriage passes or not—and on balance I hope it does, notwithstanding the truth of my headline here—the most important imperative remains: Strangle Nanny!


Sam Austin

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-08-03 22:11.

Homosexuality is God's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children.

Personally ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2012-08-03 21:45.

... I think marriage should be banned. Far too much of that sort of thing in the world already. Studies have shown it often leads to breeding.

Word games

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-08-03 14:58.

Cue Linz at this point to accuse me of smart-assery and playing silly word games.

Smart, yes. Assery, no! As for playing silly word games, well ... oops.

But isn't the current debate a paradigm case of playing silly word games? The debate is over Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It's about a definition or, rather, a redefinition. And it's a pernicious redefinition! Rand must be salivating in her grave.

Whatever else may be said about this bill, one thing's for sure. Its authors have not fully thought through its implications. Of course, our legislators haven't in the past, so why start now?

Browsing through the legislation, I came across Forbidden marriages, which is Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act 1955.

1 A man may not marry his

(2) Grandfather's wife:
(15) Son's son's wife:
(16) Daughter's son's wife:

No one else's wives rate even a passing mention.

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. It's a basic common law principle, isn't it? So much for the illegality of n-gamy (where n > 1).

No, Ross

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-08-03 13:54.

Marrying more than one other is bigamy.

Marrying one other is bigamy.

Marrying more than one other is polygamy.

Marrying someone whose weight equals or exceeds that of two people of normal weight is supersizamy.

I've just realised something else

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-08-03 13:52.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, if it were passed into law, would not legalise gay marriage. It would legalise bigamy!

This Bill will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people ...

The Crimes Act 1961 defines bigamy as

the act of a person who, being married, goes through [a] form of marriage or civil union in New Zealand with a third person

Now if marriage is *legally defined* as a union of 2 people, then going through a form of marriage with a third person will be a *legal impossibility*. Note, however, that it will remain a crime for a person in a civil union to enter into a civil union with a third person. Perhaps someone should come up with a complementary Civil Union (Definition of Civil Union) Bill?

You just realised nothing

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Fri, 2012-08-03 08:29.

Marrying more than one other is bigamy.

I'm sure that's already covered.

I've just realised something

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Thu, 2012-08-02 12:24.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, if it were passed into law, would not legalise gay marriage. It would criminalise polygamy.

This Bill will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people ...

This bill is no "creep of government into human relationships," it's authoritarianism at full sprint.

I'm against it. And so are my wives.

The term...

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Wed, 2012-08-01 08:56.

..."marriage" is not applied to civil unions, under law.

The other day, I did hear George Takei refer to his husband. I guess he was his husband's husband. A lesbian would be the wife of her wife.

It certainly jars, to the heterosexual ear. But if you have a same sex marriage, you have two husbands, or two wives.

And the adopted child of a same sex couple has two mothers, or two fathers.

Go figure.

Abraham Lincoln

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2012-08-01 16:50.

How many legs does a donkey have if you call the tail a leg?

Say what you mean

reed's picture
Submitted by reed on Tue, 2012-07-31 21:25.

Lindsay
Gay marriage is not illegal.

What aspect of gay marriage needs to be "legalised"?

So Mr Cartmell ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2012-07-31 13:07.

... are you opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage?

The "creep of government into human relationships," against which only I in NZ have protested, has already occurred and will be no further advanced if gay marriage is legalised. So "on balance," as I've explained, on the premise that the law should treat gay partnerships no differently from straight ones, I'd opt for legalisation—while at the same time screaming, as I've always done, and as I do here, that all relationships—marriage, civil unions, de facto, gay/straight—should be freed from the shackles of the state. Neither supporters nor opponents of gay marriage, alas, are advocating this.

Welcome to SOLO. I say that to all my new guests, even those not house-trained in elementary politeness toward their new host.

Haggis

Shane's picture
Submitted by Shane on Mon, 2012-07-30 23:57.

firmly in cheek, Marcus. Check the link.

Wheel Spinning?

briancartmell's picture
Submitted by briancartmell on Mon, 2012-07-30 08:37.

How is it possible to write an entire article criticising the creep of government into human relationships and then end by saying, "Whether gay marriage passes or not -- and on balance I hope it does" . . . ?

You even called the Property Relationships Act "an abomination" for its intrusions, but then essentially shrugged your shoulders in your last sentence and said, "Eh, c'est la vie!"

Scotland (as ever)...

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Mon, 2012-07-30 06:18.

...is far more left-wing than England.

Left to their own devices they would happily become another communist state with the worker's unions in charge.

Scotland, as ever,

Shane's picture
Submitted by Shane on Mon, 2012-07-30 00:23.

is the voice of reason.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/...

"...Meanwhile, England remains deeply divided over the issue with Conservative MPs insisting marriage is a sacred bond between two people of the opposite sex who desperately want each other dead."

Legalise gay divorce!

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sat, 2012-07-28 03:41.

What therefore God hath not joined together, let man put asunder.

Supporting Gay Marriage Legislation Is for Suckers

reed's picture
Submitted by reed on Fri, 2012-07-27 01:16.

39% say gay marriage should be illegal.

Gay Marriage

Kiwiwit's picture
Submitted by Kiwiwit on Fri, 2012-07-27 00:53.

I agree - marriage should be for individuals and their families and communities to recognise and honour in whatever way they choose. If the local Holler-for-Jesus congregation choose not to recognise gay marriage, so be it; likewise, if the Rastafari-cum-Budha-cum-Ra-worshipping marriage celebrant wants to recognise that between gay people, so be it.

Politics and the English Language

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Thu, 2012-07-26 14:51.

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

This is true

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Thu, 2012-07-26 08:59.

When the Civil Union bill was being debated, the fig leaf was that marriage would be reserved for hetero couples.

Sure, you can maintain that the next logical step is to call all unions marriage. It's quite inconsequential *if* you adhere to the idea that the state should get involved in all things.

Frankly, it was nice when we had people just living together. They set their own rules. Now we have this state imprimatur. And we have it because of all the laws that dictate what we can and can't do as individuals who simply want to form a partnership.

Once upon a time you avoided marriage to be free of the legal constraints. Now you form a relationship and you are restrained beyond your intent.

This is the Consumer Guarantees Act for couples.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.