Same sex marriage legalised in New Zealand, House of Representatives bursts into song

mike65

View wrote: »

That's an unreasonable criticism of our politicians. The legal advice they have received is apparently that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to introduce same-sex marriage here - an amendment which, based on the electorate's past record of conservative social attitudes, would quite probably be lost (Remember divorce only passed on the second attempt by a narrow margin).

As such, same-sex union would need to be introduced and broadly accepted before a constitutional amendment to support same-sex marriage will be put to the people. Even then there will no guarantee on the outcome..

Wha? How can it be introduced without the amendment?

edit - Ah right sorry (always read with glasses on!), union before marriage. I have to say going via an intermediary stage seems increasingly pointless. I think marriage would be passed, the people are well ahead of the political classes on this sort of thing these days.

DaveDaRave

A show of solidarity like twigs in a faggót

Pessimist

Brought tears to my eyes! I hope Australia follows suit but they would need a Referendum & they're hard to pass there (majority of people in majority of states). But a lot of people are behind it there so fingers crossed!

Would be great if it was also passed in Ireland as well. I do find since I've moved here that people can be a little defeatest though. Assume something will fail due to the older generation or Catholic Church so don't even try to make things happen.

minidazzler

vicwatson wrote: »

Oh give it to the people to decide. The Irish constitution needs to be ripped up and shredded in many parts, it's wayyy to out of date for modern society

That exact thing is being done right now :pac: Or is supposed to be in the Constitutional Convention.

Pessimist wrote: »

Would be great if it was also passed in Ireland as well. I do find since I've moved here that people can be a little defeatest though. Assume something will fail due to the older generation or Catholic Church so don't even try to make things happen.

Are you calling us Pessimists? :P And mostly we feel that because it's true, the Old cnuts would all be out to vote because their Parish priest would want to see them at the polling stations.

riffmongous

Meangadh wrote: »

I thought of it straight away when I heard it! Although I did hear other songs with the same tune before, that often happens- it's originally a Maori song called Pokarekare Ana, a kind of unofficial NZ anthem.

It's uncanny how similar they sound

Nodin

mick_sheen wrote: »

new zealand is a peculiar place

How so?

Morag

orestes wrote: »

Awesome. I'm pretty sure they were the first folks to give women the vote too. Blasted kiwis, making us look bad.

Yup they were

snubbleste

They seem to get by fine with 120 MPs with 4.4m population, whereas we must have 166 for 4.6m population.

B0jangles

So very very cheering - both the result and the reaction to the result.

If you want a nice laugh have a listen to one of the NZ politicians giving his view in the lead-up to this vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDEiaoEP2U&feature=player_embedded

He's awesome and hilarious .

mcwinning

snubbleste wrote: »

They seem to get by fine with 120 MPs with 4.4m population, whereas we must have 166 for 4.6m population.

NZ is 3 times the size of Ireland as well, crazy that we have so many.

Back on topic, fair play Kiwis!

Tar.Aldarion

Great stuff, nice video. Still 77 for, 44 against booo

Phill Ewinn

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Great stuff, nice video. Still 77 for, 44 against booo

How so?

Chuck Stone

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

How so?

Because equality is a good thing?

Son Of A Vidic

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Great stuff, nice video. Still 77 for, 44 against booo

Whether we agree with it or not, we mustn't forget that people have a right to vote No.

CrabRevolution

orestes wrote: »

Awesome. I'm pretty sure they were the first folks to give women the vote too. Blasted kiwis, making us look bad.

New Zealand gave voting rights to women in 1893, at a time when ireland was being completely governed by britain, not really like we could have given women the vote even if we wanted to.

Also until 1928 women could only vote under certain conditions in the UK like being over 30 and owning property or having been to university. Here in ireland though men and women had equal voting rights at 21 years old right from independance. Not as backward as people here love to think.

Fr_Dougal

Wonder will they do the Haka when same sex divorce is legalised.

1ZRed

CrabRevolution wrote: »

New Zealand gave voting rights to women in 1893, at a time when ireland was being completely governed by britain, not really like we could have given women the vote even if we wanted to.

Also until 1928 women could only vote under certain conditions in the UK like being over 30 and owning property or having been to university. Here in ireland though men and women had equal voting rights at 21 years old right from independance. Not as backward as people here love to think.

In fairness we slowed the fuk down to a snail's pace after that for decades

Da Shins Kelly

We also legalised homosexuality in 1993 and within 20 years had civil unions. It's also looking more and more likely that we're headed toward full legalised gay marriage. Not too bad for a country that's been ruled by the iron fist of the church for so long. These things don't happen overnight, but we're progressing at a faster rate than some would like to admit, I think.

And fair play to the Kiwis!

La_Gordy

That was one of the few things on the Internet that ever made me physically happy

1ZRed

La_Gordy wrote: »

That was one of the few things on the Internet that ever made me physically happy

Really? Have you discovered pornhub yet?

Sarky

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Whether we agree with it or not, we mustn't forget that people have a right to vote No.

Generally it's a good idea if that no vote is based on something besides stupidity or hatred, though. The world is still waiting for a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that's not stupid or based on hatred. Far too many people either rely on terrible reasons that have been torn apart time and again, or they say "It should be obvious" as if that absolves them from not giving a reason.

I'd be very surprised indeed if any of those 44 no votes provided something besides one of those clichés.

Daith

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Whether we agree with it or not, we mustn't forget that people have a right to vote No.

People have a right to vote no to deny other people's rights?

View wrote: »

That's an unreasonable criticism of our politicians. The legal advice they have received is apparently that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to introduce same-sex marriage here - an amendment which, based on the electorate's past record of conservative social attitudes, would quite probably be lost (Remember divorce only passed on the second attempt by a narrow margin).

Nope. There is nothing stopping the government from just legislating for same sex marriage. There is no constitutional ammendment needed.

flanzer

1ZRed wrote: »

Really? Have you discovered pornhub yet?

xhamster ftw

Frank Bullitt

I wonder what would have happened if it wasn't passed, burst into the Hakka, I'd like to see that.

hooradiation

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Whether we agree with it or not, we mustn't forget that people have a right to vote No.

Of course, however you might be shocked to learn that this right does not provide the slightest bit of protection from being judged about their choice to be on the wrong side of history.

So, with that in mind, what was your point again? I can't seem to find it.

Duggys Housemate

I get the impression that people who want to believe we are ruled by the Church want to feel like radical outsiders, in a country which is post-Catholic. The polls show that 71% of people support gay marriage, so it will win an referendum.

Divroce was 20 years ago. A 70 year old then was born in 1920, a 65 year old now was probably dancing to the Rolling Stones.

Duggys Housemate

Rothmans wrote: »

Nowhere in our Constitution does it define 'marriage'. It has repeatedly been stressed that the Constitution is a 'living document' to be interpretted contemporarily. Furthermore, the Constitution states that the state is obliged to 'protect the family'. Therefore, it could certainly be argued that by leaving so many families unprotected, the state is failing in its obligation to protect the family, and should therefore legislate for protection of non-conventinal families.
IMO, Enda just doesn't want to make a hard decision and is dragging this issue out in order to buy time. If it is put to referendum, he is unlikely to lose votes from his more conservatives voters as he can say that it was essentially out of his hands.

I agree, if culture changes then the words change. Lets the courts decide if legislation is legal or not, and then have a referendum.

Daith

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I get the impression that people who want to believe we are ruled by the Church want to feel like radical outsiders, in a country which is post-Catholic. The polls show that 71% of people support gay marriage, so it will win an referendum.

Divroce was 20 years ago. A 70 year old then was born in 1920, a 65 year old now was probably dancing to the Rolling Stones.

A referendum is going to be much narrower than that. If anything I'm thinking 51% in favour.

What will help is I'd expect a large turnout from college people and younger people who normally don't vote to do so. Those against are relying on the "unseen majority" who won't vote in polls or would say yes if asked but vote differently.

FG don't want to legislate for this because their traditional voter base would be against it. Far easier for them (and more spineless) to go "oh we need a referendum" (no we don't) and if it passes it's the will of the people.

Legs.Eleven

I love a bit of progress, me. Fcuking great. Fair play NZ!!

Irish Halo

vicwatson wrote: »

Oh give it to the people to decide. The Irish constitution needs to be ripped up and shredded in many parts, it's wayyy to out of date for modern society

Is that not why we have a Constitutional Convention at the moment?