I'm voting for the Maroi Party

[madboy]

where is the kiwi party?

Kiwi party? You're hopeful.

It's not your race that's the problem, it's the 3% of them who are friggin useless bastards. Just like the 3% of my ethnic cousins that are friggin useless. Unfortunately, though, my taxes don't pay for the ministry of white buggers affairs. Although WINZ does take an active role in looking after many of the 3%... and justice... and police...

Lowest common demonimator - all asians are useless drivers, all young males are dangerous drivers, all maoris are bludgers, all PIs are wife beaters... can't beat stereotyping.

Most "white" folks are shit scared of the Maori party, cos they think the 3% mentioned above will be running it and doling out everyone else's hard earned taxes for them to buy a new Lexus.

But then I'm not big on geneology nor cultural identity. I don't care about my irish ancestry, and especially don't care that they came via Australia long after some white folks and some brown folks penned a few signatures back in 1840. I don't see what some dodgy land deal has to do with me, and I really can't understand why some people are still whining about it 165 years later.

It's a bit like getting pissed that your parents remarried (to other people) after a divorce because it dilutes your inheritance... jeez, take responsibility for your own actions, don't dwell on the past.

My rant for the day. Back to writing my CV. T.I.E., you have my sympathy mate, being a decent "normal" human being with your ethnic background can't be easy in todays environment.

[Lou Girardin]

The Nats ran the defence forces into the ground for years.
The Nats started the Treaty gravy train.
The Nats allowed barely restricted immigration.
The Nats started the 'traffic enforcement as a revenue tool' strategy.
The Nats certainly didn't attempt to restore ANZUS when they had a chance.

[Lias]

Thank you, George Dubilya...

Dude, that "Sanctity of Marriage" shit is fallacious and you know it. Unless, of course, angry bullies smashing the shit out of co-dependant women who lack the self-respect to kick the fucker in the nuts and find a good divorce lawyer is somehow "sanctified".

There is no atrocity that has not been perpetrated within the bounds of supposed "holy" wedlock and you're saying that the ability of people - both homosexuals and heterosexuals - to have a "Civil Union" in some way undermines that?

Admittedly the distinction between a legal "marriage" (especially when a Civil Celebrant is all that is required to perform a legal marriage of two people) and a "Civil Union" is little more than legal semantics, but one could argue that the amendments to Matrimonial Property law that came in ages ago rendered the distinction between a legally "married" couple and a "de facto" couple (whether hetero- or homosexual) null and void anyway. The Matrimonial Property Act amendment effectively put "living in sin" on a par with a church marriage.

Honestly, if anyone should complain about the Civil Union bill it's those who make use of it because it is little more than a way for the government to get revenue from a large chunk of people who were previously unable to get fleeced by marriage licence fees.

I attended a couple of friends' Civil Union and enjoyed it immensely. I do not feel that my marriage has been undermined or made less sacred (we had a civil celebrant, a priest and a priestess conducting our wedding in front of our friends, family and deities) by the ability of people to make a choice between "marriage", living "de facto" and "Civil Union"; nor by the fact that the last two options are open to homosexuals.

Don't worry, dude, "marriage" is still protected and only available to heterosexuals thanks to sexually-bigotted people who kicked up a fuss about the possibility of opening it to gays. Bad enough we disgusting pagans and all those filthy atheists out there can get a marriage licence and even choose to get married in a church if we/they wish, without those gays getting in on the act, eh? Best create a separate officially recognised union to appease the bigots but not even that works because "Civil Union = Sanctity of Marriage Compromised" ... that "towering intellect" GW Bush said so!

I'm not a christian, nor do I have any love of dubya (as you well know) so dont try throwing that in my face. I do however very firmly believe that Marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman before the god(s) of their choice. It's not a "christian" thing, marriage has been around for thousands of years, across pretty much every major religion and to the best of my knowledge has always been exclusively between a man and a woman, and involves declaring their commitment to each other, and making oaths to said gods.

For labour to legislate saying that "marriage" can be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and woman who are not declaring their beliefs to their gods is offensive to me, and to many other new zealanders. If labour had held a referendum on this issue we all know it would have gone down in flames, and enver been passed. But Labour instead chose to force the legislation through, ignoring the widespread public outcry, and that is nothing less than massive social engiineering, trying to alter the fabric of NZ's society to what labour wants.

As for the beaten woman situation, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill would have been sufficient to cover a defacto relationship like that. The "legal" protection for partners in any relationship is covered by that bill, the actual Civil Union Bill wasn't needed for those legal protections, and its the CUB that is what I object too.

so you'd rather travel to london or where ever it was to have your case heard in NZ's highest court which just so happens to be in another country?

I'm a fairly ardent nationalist, but I do support the privy council. The privy council is a facility of the commonwealth, its judges are made up not just of british judges but other nationalities as well. They are expoed to case law from many parts of the world, and many countries with british based legal systems. They make an excellent independent court, that understands NZ law , whilst being indendent of NZ and unable to be influenced by partisan politicking within NZ. I genuinely believe that we should stick with the Privy Council to maintain a genuinely neutral appeal platform for the NZ legal system.

[Ixion]

And thank you, Wolf, for that convincing demolition job on the "sanctity of marriage" nonsense. The idea that giving something to someone equates to taking something away from someone else shows how deeply we have been indoctrinated by the thinking of economists and bean-counters.

Generosity of spirit is not like money in the bank: the more you spread it around, the richer you become...

Have to disagree. Don't have any problem with gays, or anyone else, getting MARRIED, m'self. But the Civil Unions Bill does undermine marriage. Admittedly, it's by way of the (semi) last nail in the coffin, most of the damage was done when divorce became a fashionable thing. Was a time when marriage was SPECIAL. Two people who vowed to commit themselves totally to each other, for life, come what may. Can't get much more special than that.

Civil Unions Bill says , in effect, "marriage is nothing special, you can have exactly the same thing by just signing this bit of paper. When you're sick of it, just walk away". 'Tis like an Olypmics where everybody gets a gold medal - not much point to the gold medal then, is there? In fact, it's actually more like an Olympics where everyone in the stadium gets a gold medal. So it is indeed true that giving something to someone (gold medals to everyone) does indeed equate to taking something (the specialness of the medal ) away from ( the person who actually came first)

Not much left now of "until death us do part" , or "for better, for worse"

Fact is the -people who promoted the Civil Unions Bill **HATED** the whole concept of marriage and made it very plain that they did.

Wouldn't have minded if they just let gays marry under the same deal as others.Fact that they didn't take that simple option suggests that the real objective was indeed to undermine marriage.

Religion doesn't come into it, because for donkey's years you've been able to be married in a Registry Office, which is totally non religious. And there are plenty of marriage celebrants out there who will conduct a completely secular marriage ceremony. So the whole chuck off at "religion' and "churches" is just a smoke screen.

[ManDownUnder]

The Nats ran the defence forces into the ground for years.
The Nats started the Treaty gravy train.
The Nats allowed barely restricted immigration.
The Nats started the 'traffic enforcement as a revenue tool' strategy.
The Nats certainly didn't attempt to restore ANZUS when they had a chance.

You're sounding angly - not sad...

Is it fair to say you're seeing red - not feeling blue?

[MikeL]

For labour to legislate saying that "marriage" can be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and woman who are not declaring their beliefs to their gods is offensive to me, and to many other new zealanders.

I'm sorry, but your attitude that insists on equating marriage with an ideal supposedly instituted by the Judaeo-Christian god is culturally offensive to me and many other New Zealanders.

[Lou Girardin]

You're sounding angly - not sad...

Is it fair to say you're seeing red - not feeling blue?

Seeing red fairly accurately describes my feeelings toward Labour.

[Lias]

I'm sorry, but your attitude that insists on equating marriage with an ideal supposedly instituted by the Judaeo-Christian god is culturally offensive to me and many other New Zealanders.

Read what I said above. I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN, I guess if I had to pinhole I'd call myself a semi-agnostic odinist.
It's not a "christian" thing, marriage has been around for thousands of years, across pretty much every major religion and to the best of my knowledge has always been exclusively between a man and a woman, and involves declaring their commitment to each other, and making oaths to said gods.

Religion doesn't come into it, because for donkey's years you've been able to be married in a Registry Office, which is totally non religious. And there are plenty of marriage celebrants out there who will conduct a completely secular marriage ceremony. So the whole chuck off at "religion' and "churches" is just a smoke screen.

I'll be the first to admit that the sanctity of marriage has been declining in recent decades, with divorce rates and registry office weddings, but as you said the CUB is the last (and IMO largest) nail in the coffin. I dont think registry office weddings are a good thing either, nor is the rampant divorce rates we have. Until say 30-40 years ago, marriage was a sacred lifelong commitment between a man and a woman before their god(s), something that had been unchanged for 1000's of years across many religions, and modern society has managed to almost totally destroy its meaning in a few decades. I think its a bloody tragedy to be honest.

[Lias]

Civil Unions Bill says , in effect, "marriage is nothing special, you can have exactly the same thing by just signing this bit of paper. When you're sick of it, just walk away". 'Tis like an Olypmics where everybody gets a gold medal - not much point to the gold medal then, is there? In fact, it's actually more like an Olympics where everyone in the stadium gets a gold medal. So it is indeed true that giving something to someone (gold medals to everyone) does indeed equate to taking something (the specialness of the medal ) away from ( the person who actually came first)

Interesting point you raise here, because its a viewpoint I've expressed about many other things in society that have changed in recent times. Take for example our school system, where no longer is there grades (A+, D-) etc, but simply "acheived" or "yet to acheive". Certain factions (who I shall lump as "the left"), have enshrined a system in our schools that says there are no winners and no loosers, that everyone is equal, and no-one is better than anyone else. This is done in the name of ensuring that noone feels "put down" by getting poor grades, yet in doing so takes away the rights of those at the top of the scale to be recognised for their skills and talents. There is no such thing as a "straight A" student, or an honours student now, gone are the days of bell curves.. We just have "those who pass and those who dont". Apart from being a utopian leftwing ideal pretty much straight out of the communist manifesto, the simple fact is this idealism leaves our youth sorely underequipped to deal with the cold harsh reality that is adult life. In life their are winners and loosers, not everyone gets to be a winner and people will always compete against each other.

[MikeL]

In fact, it's actually more like an Olympics where everyone in the stadium gets a gold medal. So it is indeed true that giving something to someone (gold medals to everyone) does indeed equate to taking something (the specialness of the medal ) away from ( the person who actually came first)

Your analogy is attractive at first sight. However I could imagine exactly the same argument being put forward over the emancipation of slaves ("Freedom? Give it to all and sundry and those of us born free will feel devalued"), votes for women, etc. In fact it is an understandable human characteristic to jealously guard privilege, and arguments like this are just a rationalization for that instinctive behaviour.

Do you think you deserve a medal for being married? What sort of competition is it? Would the citation mention bravery above and beyond the call of duty, praiseworthy self-sacrifice, outstanding endurance...?

Fact is, society has changed. Your concept of marriage, admirable as an ideal, has not been a reality for a long time. Before you blithely assume the change has been for the worse, think back to the good old days when divorce was difficult or impossible, when people stayed in unhappy marriages for the sake of appearances (or the children), when hypocrisy and deception were the hidden face of conventional morality.

Nothing the law ever does will prevent a man and a woman pledging themselves to each other for life, and if they feel that their relationship or the validity and sincerity of their commitment is diminished or threatened by the existence of alternative ways of living one's life, or the extension of the legal and social rights which they enjoy to people who have been denied those rights, then it brings into question the solidity of that commitment or relationship.

[Turbo Bong]

Considering how many of the Maori Party candidates have come out in support of Donna Awatere-Huata and her theft of at least $80,000 of funds from Maori children, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, not that I ever intended to before anyway. If their attitude is that most Maoris are in jail/unemployed/ill/grossly overweight/unintelligent/insert whatever you want because they are Maori and it's a white man's world, they can piss off back to the grass huts and moas they had when we arrived and stop sticking their bloody hands out.

Try putting on some balls and bomb them then all.
The people of this country are doomed too fight each other soon anyway.
Most maori are good for nothing. But not all.
They need to break away from tradition and explore the possible.
Yes its sad to hear about failers. But at least their trying.
Theirs one thing they dont care about right now. Quality life.
Opposing their rights to unconditional self-determination is only going to hold everyone in this great country of ours back.
We will never, never move from the past into the future.

Ahh but who gives a shit anyway. I dont.

[ManDownUnder]

Try putting on some balls and bomb them then all.
The people of this country are doomed too fight each other soon anyway.
Most maori are good for nothing. But not all.
They need to break away from tradition and explore the possible.
Yes its sad to hear about failers. But at least their trying.
Theirs one thing they dont care about right now. Quality life.
Opposing their rights to unconditional self-determination is only going to hold everyone in this great country of ours back.
We will never, never move from the past into the future.

Ahh but who gives a shit anyway. I dont.

Jees dude - be good if you could bottle that. I hear they can extract anti venom and ship it to where it's needed...

[Wolf]

I do however very firmly believe that Marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman before the god(s) of their choice.

What is your view on what a "de facto" relationship conveys/infers about commitment between two people?

For labour to legislate saying that "marriage" can be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and woman who are not declaring their beliefs to their gods is offensive to me, and to many other new zealanders.

Colour-coded reply:
Labour is saying nothing of the sort - Civil Union is not Marriage by legal definition, it is a separate state-recognised union. "Labour" said a Civil Union can be between any couple of consenting adults. A "Marriage" licence may only be issued to a male-female pairing. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant...

Non-believers\atheists have been able to apply for, and get, a marriage licence for a large number of years and that has nothing to do with Labour or the CUB. In fact, the CUB gives non-believers the option of having a Civil Union instead of actively "undermining the sanctity of marriage" by getting married. Great news for all the religious bigots out there! All those pesky atheists can have one of those secular Civil Unions.

A lot of people feel "offended" by mixed racial marriages, and mixed religion marriages, as well - there are names for those sorts of people. Invariably they attempt to disguise their bigotry as piety.

What about marriages conducted by a Civil Celebrant rather than a member of some form of clergy? Are they invalid or "offensive" in some way?

NZ law already is slanted in a pro-Christian fashion - the fact that only male-female pairs can get a marriage licence and that there are different requirements for marriages performed by Civil Celebrants than for those performed by Christian clergy - and just you try to swear on any Holy text other than the Christian bible in any court of law in this country. Atheists, Moslems, Jews and Pagans alike must "Affirm" rather than have the option to swear by the deities of our choice.

To say that "marriage" is being devalued in any way by the CUB is bollox in extremis - it is being further segregated to appease a predominently "Christian" subset of our community who kicked up a fuss at the idea of same-sex marriages.

Creating a "Civil Union" - a seperate "State-recognised" union - further panders to the "pseudo-piety" to which our laws are prey. I see no reason that same-sex couples should not apply for, and get, marriage licences and end the State's tacit acceptance of bigotry. Hey but, fuck, I'm just a pinko hippy pagan.

If you were a Christian and Labour said "gays can now apply for a marriage licence and your minister is not allowed to prevent them getting married in your church", you might have genuine cause for alarm and I would finally think the government had grown some cohones.

(Legal) Marriage = may be secular or religious, man+woman only.

Civil Union = secular, any pair of consenting adults not disqualified under incest laws

What difficulty are you having with the distinction?

[Wolf]

Have to disagree. Don't have any problem with gays, or anyone else, getting MARRIED, m'self. But the Civil Unions Bill does undermine marriage. Admittedly, it's by way of the (semi) last nail in the coffin, most of the damage was done when divorce became a fashionable thing. Was a time when marriage was SPECIAL. Two people who vowed to commit themselves totally to each other, for life, come what may. Can't get much more special than that.

Civil Unions Bill says , in effect, "marriage is nothing special, you can have exactly the same thing by just signing this bit of paper. When you're sick of it, just walk away".

You and I see polar opposites in the same event. I hadn't thought of it the way that you mention.

I don't thing the CUB says you can walk away any time you like - and you can be sure it is governed by the Matrimonial Property Act.

Divorce stopped being popular with the advent of Christianity, so far as the Europeans amongst us go - under Celtic Culture (that covered a large chunk of Europe and the Isles) they had equality in marriage and divorce was a matter of repeating your intent to dissolve the marriage three times before witnesses...

'twas the Cat-licks that were agin divorce and for a while the Proddies only allowed it on the grounds of adultery - being beaten black and blue or raped by your partner didn't count as sufficient grounds under Christendom - but those evil pagans allowed women to ditch an abusive husband (or men to ditch shrewish wives) some 2.000 years or so before Christ.

I'm of the opinion that the ability to get divorce easily strengthens marriage - the old "if you love something, set it free" idea. The fact that I am free to just walk out of my relationship and get a divorce says more for the fact that I am still married to Juliet than if divorce were forbidden. I'm still married to Juliet because I want to be - not because I have to be.

Divorce is choice, and choice is strength. Forbidding divorce as the Catholic Church does, cheapens the marriage owing to all the married couples who hate each other but can't get divorced.

[Beemer]

It's not a "christian" thing, marriage has been around for thousands of years, across pretty much every major religion and to the best of my knowledge has always been exclusively between a man and a woman, and involves declaring their commitment to each other, and making oaths to said gods.

I don't agree with all of this - I do agree that marriage is a sacred commitment between two people who want to be together for life, but when we married earlier this year, god or gods didn't come into it anywhere. Neither of us is into religion and our service was conducted by a marriage celebrant in the grounds of our reception venue. We wrote the service ourselves and vowed to be faithful and honest, to respect, trust, help and care for each other and to share our lives through the best and the worst of what is to come, as long as we live. Think that covers it all for us!

And Turbo Bong, what are you talking about? "Try putting on some balls and bomb them then all. The people of this country are doomed too fight each other soon anyway. Most maori are good for nothing. But not all. They need to break away from tradition and explore the possible. Yes its sad to hear about failers. But at least their trying. Theirs one thing they dont care about right now. Quality life. Opposing their rights to unconditional self-determination is only going to hold everyone in this great country of ours back. We will never, never move from the past into the future. Ahh but who gives a shit anyway. I dont."

Did I say all Maori were useless or anything in that vein? I was talking about the Maori Party candidates and THEIR attitudes, not those of the general Maori population.