Hard News: That Buzzing Sound
757 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Should Macintyre have stayed in that marriage because her wife had mental health issues?
Beyond Rankin's statement, I don't think it's been established that McAuley had "mental health issues", however you might define those.
-
Beyond Rankin's statement, I don't think it's been established that McAuley had "mental health issues", however you might define those.
Her husband left her, she killed herself. Isn't it a tad self-evident?
-
...worth noting that both confer the same status/rights. I think of them as equivalent if not equal.
Paul, I take your point about defining inequalities. Sometimes conferring equivalent status isn't quite enough though. An example (and I realise it's not quite analogous) would be if, in the USA the 1950s, the law prohibiting black people from sitting at the front of the bus wasn't enforced. That would confer equivalent status but there would still not be equality. And it matters.
Christopher, just returning the favour really. You've done it for me often enough in the past :)
Giovanni, I quite agree. I do want to add though that the gains we haven't made are equally overdue. The names of things are important, they give power. In a good way.
-
Christopher - snap!
-
@Russell
It perhaps did seem that way after the huge shitfight that it turned out to be, but I don't think that was apparent in advance.
I guess someone should have suggested (it wasn't done) that we think back to the Homosexual Law Reform Bill days - I wasn't out then, but from my understanding the shitfight that happened was worth every ounce of freedom... I guess in a way I would prefer to engage in the greater effort for equal civil rights, rather than reach a compromise.
Civil unions had the virtue of having been party policy for several years, so there could be no accusation of springing a surprise. And CUs had majority support in nearly every public poll, while marriage didn't (although attitudes were notably age-related on it).
True enough, although I personally would have argued along the lines of equal civil rights in marriage, not gay marriage.
I've said it often enough there's no such thing as gay rights / gay marriage, there's only equal civil rights for LGBTT members of society .
This distinction is lost on members of our community, I've observed, and so we find ourselves bogged down in 'gay rights' (meaning special rights), not equal civil rights for LGBTT citizens - which is much harder to deny.
-
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
Ok, still think you cant always get what you want, and don't think one should feel they are not equal in a planet kinda way which I do care about.
-
Sofie I'd argue that human rights are needs, not wants.
-
that they shouldn't compromise in this case... ;)
I think the people being bulldozed without choice should do whatever they want to do to have an opinion and be able to try their hardest to stop this Joyce railroading the residents. I would . I live near there but it isn't in my back yard but I know people who are and they could be respected in the 21st century.Give them the tunnel. Don't be so selfish. The day National got in was the day I thought now we are fucked. That's it really.
-
Sofie I'd argue that human rights are needs, not wants.
and I don't want to argue.:) Each to their own eh?
-
On Barnett:
There are people posting here who are somewhat better connected than I am within the Labour Party (to put it mildly) and this may be just a Bowen Triangle (I refuse to use the term 'Beltway') thing, but I was given to understand some time ago Barnett didn't want a Cabinet post & had decided he could do more about the things he cared about as an MP putting up private member's bills.
If so, that's a rarity in NZ politics, but quite common in UK Parliament, historically anyway. Of course it has six times the number of MPs we have (and about five times as many ministers).
-
but I was given to understand some time ago Barnett didn't want a Cabinet post & had decided he could do more about the things he cared about as an MP putting up private member's bills.
Do you know how to ask him? Anyone know if he's emailable?
-
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
And rightly so though it's not something you can legislate for.
At the risk of sounding like a legal realist, I suspect CUs are slightly ahead of present social attitudes (I think the swing against progressive politics is gathering pace, Rankin's appointment is emblematic) and that Labour had exhausted it's progressive mandate. I'm not happy about that, quite the opposite (but I know that as a straight white hetro-male I'm less at risk during any counter-phase). I appreciate the frustration you may feel at any suggestion that CUs are training-wheel marriages; they're not and as I said up-thread, it's essentially what my wife and I choose before it was available.
-
Her husband left her, she killed herself. Isn't it a tad self-evident?
Wow. Your analytical ability stuns me.
He was able to predict
that she would be unstable if he left,
so that was sufficient reason
for him to leave.Wow.
-
Wow. Your analytical ability stuns me.
Mark Harris switches into total arsehole mode without provocation. Must be a day ending in 'y'.
(This witty riposte was brought to you by the Craig Ranapia Appreciation Society.)
I have absolutely no idea of what your problem is, or what you are alleging I might have been saying, so I'll just let it go and get on with my evening if that's okay with you.
-
But, out of interest, do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment? Or should they simply STFU? Genuine question for everyone.
Russell: No, what I don't accept is that there was any legitimate public interest in McAuley's "friends and family" turning that woman's death into a freakshow. They're not responsible for that, there are editors who should have that sheeted home to them.
-
I thought there were still strongly enforced press guidelines about suicide reporting? Or is it not OK to say how she did it, but OK to speculate about why?
-
He was able to predict
that she would be unstable if he left,
so that was sufficient reason
for him to leave.
Wow.No, the point is that this particular suicide is (or should be) incidental to the divorce. This wasn't a murder her; regardless of why the ex-wife felt that death was her only option, it doesn't mean that either the ex-hub or Rankin somehow eviler for it.
Giovanni's original point was that it should be sufficient that Rankin's on her fourth wedding, so obviously on a practical level she's acknowledged that often a perfect nuclear family isn't viable - yet she still espouses the views of nuclear purists.
-
Sticking my hand up here as the token queer who is totally NOT in favour of same-sex marriage... and yet I think this relationship-law apartheid is indefensible.
My solution? Abolish marriage as a legal form and make CUs only have legal status. If people want to get married in a church, fine, they should go to it and plight their troth and promise to obey. But a marriage ceremony should be symbolic only, like "handfasting" ceremonies that people did before CUs came along.
Of course, being polyamorous, I also believe that CUs should not be confined to two individuals. I also think that relationship-type contracts should be customisable - for example, you could enact standard-form contracts to agree power-of-attorney, shared guardianship of children, power-of-attorney for health matters, next of kin/default beneficiary, shared property, etc, with as many individuals as you choose, for a standard fee. Put the whole lot together, and it's a "civil union". Sure, you can draw up contracts like that now, if you pay a ton of dosh to a lawyer. I envisage standard-form contracts that are registered with someone like the Public Trustee.
But I also strongly believe that being in a CU or marriage should not confer any general legal benefits beyond those enjoyed by single people. For example, the tax regime in the US, where spouses get a fat rebate by virtue of the fact they've stood up in stupid outfits and signed a piece of paper makes no sense to me. Sure, get something knocked if you have kids, or you have someone in your care, but that shouldn't be contingent on your relationship status. The only area where it might be a bit tricky is with immigration, but surely we could have the right to "sponsor" people without the need to get married to them.
Anyway, in the interim (hah, I don't expect my wishes to ever become reality), I reluctantly support the notion of same-sex marriage in order to have proper equal rights under the law. But that's the only reason.
-
man, that previous post was pretty poorly written.
..in other news, if the hoardings on private properties are representative of general support in these here parts, David Shearer's got it wrapped up.
-
...sorry, as in my previous post. I think I'll go to bed. Nothing to see here..
-
My solution? Abolish marriage as a legal form and make CUs onlyhave legal status. If people want to get married in a church, fine, they should go to it and plight their troth and promise to obey.
TracyMac, I don't see a reason to abolish one set of arrangements when you can augment it with others? Marriage works for lots of people, even those that have a few of them, it's just that they've been exclusive of other stable loving relationships. Marriage has survived being principally a religious arrangement, de facto relationships and CUs will further extend respect for couples/relationships but for some, marriage will continue to have meaning.
I also think that relationship-type contracts should be customisable - for example, you could enact standard-form contracts to agree power-of-attorney, shared guardianship of children, power-of-attorney for health matters, next of kin/default beneficiary, shared property, etc, with as many individuals as you choose, for a standard fee.
If you mean broadening the recognition of extended families, I completely agree. If you mean broadening the recognition of relationships that are based on sexual connections, my only query would be about thresholds (and knowing little about polyamorous relationships, I'm guessing there's a point where they're distinguished them from more casual connections) but then since marriages are clearly no longer lifelong connections, I wonder what "standard" there really is?
-
Many of my family scared me with their anti-Barnett statements. These were of course the 1970s Feminists totally opposed to legal prostitution. Taking an initial open approach to age didn't help matters either.
-
Wow. Your analytical ability stuns me.
Mark Harris switches into total arsehole mode without provocation.Ah yes, the "witty quip", used as a screen to not address the point. Not quite sure why challenging your comments is automatically "arsehole mode", but there we go.
You said:
Should Macintyre have stayed in that marriage because her wife had mental health issues?
I pointed out that:
I don't think it's been established that McAuley had "mental health issues", however you might define those.
to which you responded:
Her husband left her, she killed herself. Isn't it a tad self-evident?
Which came first - the mental health issues or the divorce? Which caused which?
The analytical and logical failure evident in your comments is what stuns me, whether you like it or not.
-
Whatever, Mark. Seriously, I've had it with you on these boards. Go bother somebody else.
-
Pete,
Having seen the online version of that Sunday screening I think that this is going to be another moment in a government's history where someone puts the suffix "gate" onto it.
From my sources I know that there was an affair.
McCauley's sister alleges as much too.
Prurience aside that means that Rankin has lied.
How long that takes to hit the MSM or if it ever does is conjecture but I think that this story could end up like Clark's speeding motorcade and picture non-signing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.