Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
My witch hazel is nearly out, but not quite. When we got back to the house, some person's dog had run through the front garden and broken all the daffodils. Those that survived were dissected in the cause of year 11 science.
Yeah. Here's a pic from a previous year. (I know the name of this incredibly common shrub, it's just fallen straight out of my head right now.)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Roger,
We know that prostitution reform and civil unions brought us the retribution of the Christchurch earthquake... and now Tongariro erupts. We need to stop this blasphemy right now
Once, again, God demonstrating his need of a Map to the Gayz.
This might help. Try to guess which major city in NZ has the highest level of support for marriage equality. Wrong.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Leigh Russell,
What's up, people?
Exhaustion? It's been nearly two years, Leigh. Quite a lot of us are knackered.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Really, cant we all agree that this is a no brainer, pass the bill, everyone is equal, yay, and get on with saving the poor and destitute. so we can all live in harmony for eternity.
Well, no we can't, not yet, because we still don't have the numbers. Would it be okay if we actually kept fighting until we'd won? Because we haven't. This isn't a no-brainer.
And in the meantime, no-one is stopping anyone from doing anything about water, or welfare, or anything else. How many of those National MPs said exactly that, that they couldn't be bothered forming an opinion about this, because they had important things to think about?
I think it's important to realise that if you're involved in feminism, or LGBT rights, or racial issues, or anything like that, you've been told that your issues are a distraction from the important things so many times that no, no matter how well-meant it is, it's probably not going to go down well. Because there are always important things. If we wait until we're not being distracting? We never get to the front of the queue.
-
If you want to know how the universe got here ask science.
Excellent. The science of archaeology says civil marriage predates Christianity. Not some kind of informal 'partnering ritual', but registered, contractual civil marriage. Civil marriage doesn't "mirror" Christian marriage, it got there first. Not, as has been said 'first' matters, but if you're claiming primacy on the basis of civil marriage being a cheap imitation of the real thing, you're wrong as well as insulting.
"One flesh" doesn't sound sexy to me. It sounds like I just lost the right to control my own body.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Angus: what Chris said. Adding that, just like everyone else, they'd need to pass the DIA vetting process.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Who would request a Catholic priest to witness the marriage of a gay couple and require the state force the priest to comply?
Last go. Srsly.
I said, they can't refuse to comply on the basis of sexual orientation.* They can, as Megan has pointed out, simply not do it, because no celebrant is required to marry any particular couple. Civil function, ergo in no way a matter of religious freedom.
I've said this before, but let me lay it out again so that my position doesn't continue to be misrepresented.
The change I would like to see (which is not a part of the bill we were once discussing) is that Christian ministers do not automatically become civil celebrants on ordination. That, I think, would make it much clearer that being a civil marriage celebrant is not a religious function, ergo not a matter of religious freedom. There's nothing to stop them applying to become celebrants just like anyone else, of course - what they'd be losing would be a privilege, not a right. And nothing to stop them, if they chose not to, still performing religious wedding ceremonies. That's a matter of religious freedom, and none of the state's business. And people's legal status within society is none of the church's business.
(*This may not, from subsequent discussion, be true. This seems very confused. But that's irrelevant to Angus's point, because he says people are talking about FORCING celebrants to marry people, and no-one is.)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Yes it does, if you go to a church and force them to witness a marriage that violates their religion you are being a total fuckwit to them. You are trampling on their religous beliefs and spitting in their faces.
You seem to believe that civil law grants us the right to be total hateful fuckwits to religions we do not like and force them to violate their beliefs for our own petty amusement. I disagree and think the law protects their rights.
Nowhere, nowhere have I said this. Or anything even remotely like it. Can you not find something I actually have said to disagree with?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
People of such diverse opinions as Emma Hart and Bob McCroskie concur that it is indeed an attack on religious freedom.
The, and I mean this sincerely, fuck? "Religious freedom" ends, like other rights, at the border with other people. There is no religious right to be a fuckwit to other people. There is also no religious right to perform a state function. Certain religious leaders (and only some) are currently awarded a state function, but performing that function is not a religious right. As has already been said, "mosques" (churches, synagogues, etc) do not grant marriage licences.
-
Running to keep up: the report has been amended to say they're voting against, not abstaining. Which makes their "it should be up to The People" stance bullshit.
