Wednesday, September 15, 2004

surprise, surprise!

The select committee to the Civil Union Bill received 6170 submissions, with 5892 (95.5 percent) opposing the bill. However only 360 wanted the opportunity to give an oral submission. To date about 200 oral submissions have been considered by the committee, with about 75 percent of these in opposition to the bills. Opposition came mainly from individuals and church groups, and support from human rights groups. Of course some churches also supported the bills.

So how do I know all this? Well, I didn't read it in the newspaper. Why? Nobody seems to have reported it. This is the closest. During the past few weeks most reporting on the Civil Union bill was on the people who supported it. That may change on Monday when the Maxim Institute do their submission. The Institute is one of the most vocal opponents of these bills. You try and find a good story on a group of people or topic around those - Destiny marches and Garth George opinion pieces aside - who oppose the bill. It just ain't there. Could that be because most media outlets support one or both of the civil union bills?

Are there only 218 people/groups who support the bills and are prepared to voice their opinion? Make that 212 as Margaret Mayman and John Joliffe and Des Smith made about three submissions each for various groups. Where are those that support these bills?

I suppose Helen Clark will write off the submissions as not reflective of public opinion like she did with a certain other bill.


Anonymous said...

Hey Dave

Whadaya think the chances are of the Labour party List MP's voting their conciousnesses like their Constituancy ones did last time.
I mean of course, not voting Die Futhrer's party line as they did to a man or woman or whatever.

I don't mean Ashraf as he's clearly a coward, I mean abstaining on prostitution and then hiding last time.
I'd be embarressed to be a Muslim and a Hindu with him representing my community.

No, I didn't think so, shit for brains and piss for guts my grandfather used to say.

They have no intention of listening to any submissions they don't like.
That's the arrogence and deceit of Helen Clark and her ilk.
That's why she's never going to be statesman material, just an appratchnick.

Anonymous said...

How many opponent submissions consist of
(a) biblical proof texts alone
(b) off-topic comments
(c) citation of suspect social scientific sources
(d) wouldn't similarly stand up to critical scrutiny
from New Zealand or overseas professionals re
the provenance of their claims
(e) pro forma letters, orchestrated by Christian Right
pressure groups;
...and what if supportive submissions include those
from NZ professional associations, as occurred with
the Prostitution Law Reform Act?


Jordan said...

I'm sure that the majority of submissions on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill were against the bill proceeding too, and were on the same basis as Craig's comments above. In addition, on homosexual law reform public opinion was against the change.

For Civil Unions the public are broadly in support. That is what opinion polling shows, by Colmar Brunton and by others.

Do you think people's rights should be contingent on who can organise the most submissions to a Select Committee, Dave?

If you do think that, could I ask why?

If there was a Bill introduced confiscate back all Treaty settlements, and that got 90% submissions in favour, but public opinion was broadly against, do you think the Parliament should pass it?

You're just using this as yet another opportunity to slag off a government you don't like. You could at least do the issue the decency of addressing it on its merits, rather than through your anti-Labour lense.

Anonymous said...

And don't forget, Ashraf voted for the Relationship
(Statutory References) Bill. Moreover, given the
fundamentalist *Christian* Right's history of
Islamophobic abuse, Gordon Copeland excepted,
why should he be supportive of the Christian
Right stance against civil unions?

Added to which, there are LGBT Muslim groups,
just as there are LGBT Christian ones.


Dave said...

Jordan, I certainly don't think people rights should be based dependant on how "organised" people are when submitting to select committees, just as I don’t think a select committee report should side on a minority view of submitters as happened in the Care of Children Bill.

In terms of your treaty question, if such a bill had to be introduced, I would really be questioning why such a law existed in the first place if public opinion was so vehemently against it back then.

Incidentally, I supported prostitution law reform. The majority of tbe public didn’t appear to, judging by the latest polling. Consequently I was happy for the bill to go through, but if there was a binding referendum in the issue prior to the vote on the bill, I'm sure this bill would not have gone through. The fact it was a conscience vote made it easier to go through, IMHO.

And I would have been comfortable with it not passing as the law would have been reflecting public opinion, not shaping it. Geeorgina Beyer took a similar position when she voted for the foreshore bill.

BTW I'm not totally anti-labour, some of the MP's I consider are the best MPs in the country - such as Tim Barnett - are from Labour. But some Labour ministers have been making some silly statements lately.

Anonymous said...

First, for the record, I do accept gay and lesbins as individual people, I even have friends who are gay. Its what they are together that is wrong.

I think dealing with the facts surrounding gay and lesbian rights is a good question to put forward.

The fact remains that gays and lesbians together, a biologically incapable of continuing the human race. Contuining the human race, to my mind, is one of the most natural, critical things that we as the human race can do.

How exactly are they to get past that obstacle? Rely on the rest of the human race? There is another word for that - selfishness.


Anonymous said...

So what, Matthew?

Some heterosexual couples are incapable
of reproducing without assisted reproductive
technology either, and even the Maxim Institute
has accepted that it's useless winding the
clock back a decade to ban LGBT access to
reproductive technology. During the first term
of the Clark administration, fostering was opened
to suitable LGBT couples.

And moreover, what about the empirical research
that says that same-sex parents make good parents
insofar as parent-child communication, spousal
communication about child welfare, communication
about matters of reproductive and sexual health
and positive employment and educational achievement
outcomes for their children are concerned? Added to
which, gay male parents are good at boundary setting.

If the Christian Right accepts that it's useless trying to stop reproductive technology access for
lesbian/gay couples, then why can't it accept that
medical and social scientific research about positive
parenting outcomes applies across the board?


Anonymous said...

Hi there Craig,

good point. Some heterosexual couples don't even intend to have children for their own reasons. I think the point I was making, which you already acknowledged, is that no gay or lesbian couple is capable of producing children - a 100% failure rate. Do you know what the failure rate is for hetorosexual couples is? Do you know why those heterosexual couples failed to reproduce?

While you personally might be OK with having two dads or two mums, and then discovering that you have a further biological parent, have you canvassed the children who have yet to come into the world what they would prefer? A bit difficult to isn't it? How can you determine what they want?

I know that it is more natural for the child to have its biological mum and biological dad as its parents as the child biologically came from them and they are more likely to provide the best care because the child came from them. Quite simple facts really.

Can you point me to the empirical research that makes same-sex parents good parents? I look forward to reading it. Also, how are gay male parents good at boundary setting?

Therefore I can't accept that its useless to stop HART for gay and lesbian couples. Maxim are entitled to their opinion, but I am not associated with them.


Anonymous said...


The research is:

Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz "(How) Does Sexual
Orientation Affect Parenting?" American Sociological
Review: 58:2: April 2001: 159-183.

Even the Maxim Institute acknowledged the benchmark status of this research in their Care of Children Bill


Anonymous said...

Craig (and any one else)

Your statements don't matter and come into the realm of fantasy.

95% of people don't want the CU and SR Bills passed. If, as you claim, the public opinion polls say the public want them passed, then they should have made a submission.

If they haven't then they might not care enough to worry about it.

95% is a huge and clear response. 6,170 odd submissions is also a lot.

No amount of wordsmithing or otherwise on your part will change that.

Anonymous said...

Just a few points as we skirt around the real issues.

I think the long term reason that Homosexual parents are wanted by some in society, is that they naturally are good at ensuring that the children they bring up are positive towards that lifestyle choice.

You cannot divorce this from worldview or values as these shape individuals lenses and behaviour and their decision making and discrimination of risk and effect are contingent on this.

Painting someone with a "labeling word" like far right or Christian right (so as to make their viewpoint and opinion without worth) is pointless to debate and a mark of violence.

Maxim is not on the right as you assert, some there are middle or left of centre on some issues as is Dave on some of his.

So to label him as anti-Labour does a diservice to the discussion, I've heard and read him as "anti" National, UF, Maori, Greens, and good old Winston at different times.

There is no right or left anyway, you have anarchy on one side and totalitarianism on the other.
Assuming you use a linear measure, I think a circle or sphere is perhaps a more useful analogy.

The reality is Helen Clark and dave's mate Tim Barnett wants to change the Judeo/Christian structure of society because she is a Secular Humanist and He is a Homosexual their value system is different from Judeo/Christianity.

The fact that this is being done in a stealthy underhand way without proper aknowledgement of the agenda and parties in that agenda shows her and supporters true worth as human beings.

This bill would not even be being debated if the facts of the agendas of the different groups behind it and it's consequences were out in the open for all in society to engage in and debate. (which we do need to do)

I have no problem with laws being passed that change the structures and relationships inherent in society providing there is proper discussion, reflection and a vote by all voters who will be affected by such laws.

This should be part of an informed societal discussion before a binding referendum on procedure and make up of laws.

If Helen Clark and the supporters of this bill (and it's supporting bills)were truly persons of integrity this would have already happened.

I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous said...

However, Mike, the fact remains that peer-reviewed
medical and social scientific research has testified
that same-sex parenting has no adverse effects on
children. As I noted above, Stacey and Biblarz'
research has been cited in the Maxim Institute's
own CCB submission, and Judith Stacey has been
an amicus curiae in numerous North American
same-sex marriage and parenting cases.

And incidentally, isn't 'secular humanist' a weasel
word? Moreover, sorry, but opponents of lesbian/gay
rights tend to be theologically conservative Catholics,
or fundamentalist Protestants, although some evangelicals are breaking the mould, and I wouldn't
describe all NZ evangelical institutions as fundamentalist. I quite enjoy reading the Bible Colleges' "Reality", for instance.


Anonymous said...

You use painting words to browbeat and intimidate people, like "fundamentalist, right wing" just as your sub-culture have bastadised and subverted words like diversity, tolerance, unity, gay.
Have you ever read the "QV" Queens Venacular?
It lists and describes your sub cultures language, which as you know is a window into the values and soul of a sub-culture.

you said
"And incidentally, isn't 'secular humanist' a weasel
word? Moreover, sorry, but opponents of lesbian/gay
rights tend to be theologically conservative Catholics,
or fundamentalist Protestants, although some evangelicals are breaking the mould, and I wouldn't
describe all NZ evangelical institutions as fundamentalist. I quite enjoy reading the Bible Colleges' "Reality", for instance".

Weasel word, hardly, it descibes people who are anti theistic and in fact worship self or mankind and it's organisations. communist was avarient.

I have conversations with ordinary people who are very definately not Christian least of all fundamentalists and many have spoken that they think Homosexuality is not natural and they don't agree with the choice.

These are ordinary people not religious fanatics both young and old. It comes down to values and worldview which are different in our case.

I prefer the design perpsective personally, design shows the purpose something was created for.
This leads to what it isn't created for.
this is the essential difference between a believer in a theistic being and the weasel humanists.

but then you know this.

As for the research you have quoted I haven't read it and will aquaint myself with it in the next week.
I'm sure the rabid right wing maxim can point me to it and other that would be worth reading.

Personally I have no faith in the Pscho crowd not just that only 31% of their members removed homosexuality from the disease book in the 70's nor that the APA removed paedophilia from "the big book" in the early 90'.
but last year they entertained papers (peer reviewed) that suggested that sex between a child and an adult isn't necessarily damaging if the child consents!

read for yourself go to

Now that's and oxymoron.

Anonymous said...

For the record, insofar as paedophilia is concerned,
you'd find that I'm a staunch law and order advocate
on that issue. I am in favour of Crimes Act provisions
related to child sexual abuse being strengthened along the principles of parity and severity.

And as for Judith Reisman, I suggest that you read the
New Zealand Administrative Reports for the late eighties. Sue Middleton (Education, University of
Waikato) was a member of the Indecent Publications
Tribunal at that point, and she analysed Reisman's
junk science when she came before it on behalf of the
Society for Promotion of Community Standards.

Moreover, Reisman has been barred from further harrassment of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana
University after the judge found that she was
a vexatious litigant whose allegations had no
basis in fact. For example, has anyone actually
found any of her "Children of Table 34"
from the early nineties?

It doesn't make particularly good sense to use bogus
"social science" that isn't recognised outside conservative Christian communities.


Dave said...

Hey Craig,

It also doesnt make sense using "empirical research" from people just as biased as the christian conservatives - like NARTH for example. I'm talking about your quoted research from Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz, both of whom support gay marriage and gay parenting and are using their "research " to support their worldview.

They say " In one of the original studies, 25 percent of adults raised by lesbians (six of 25) reported having a homoerotic relationship, as compared to none of those (out of 20 surveyed) with heterosexual parents. In another study, 64 percent of the adults with lesbian parents (14 of 22) reported that they would consider having a same-sex relationship, as opposed to just 17 percent of those with heterosexual parents (three of 18."

In another report issued in January 2001, two researchers in a social science consulting firm examined 49 studies that are commonly used to defend same-sex parenting and adoption. Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai found at least one "fatal flaw" in all 49 studies, indicating that no reliable generalizations can be made based on any of the studies. The researchers stated, "For these reasons, the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy."

Craig, give us some neutral research.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but Nagai and Lerner aren't disinterested either. That research was conducted for the Marriage Law Project, an anti-SSM organisation. Moreover, they stand guilty of imposing theoretical frameworks on developmental psychology and pediatric medical research that are inadequate, as Stacey and Biblarz noted in an amicus curiae affidavit that trumped that of Steven Nock. And Stacey and Biblarz have publication records in family sociology and quantitative research related to that area. Like it or not, they are professionals who have relevant credentials in the area.

In any case, Nagai and Lerner's work has vanished from debates about same-sex parenting, so the US Christian Right must have noticed Stacey/Biblarz' critique.


Anonymous said...

If you are going to quote info please put a source address.
I'll chase up your comments with regard to the society for community standards and Dr Judith Reisman.

I own Kinseys original book and in reading it I have to ask myself
1. How did they get to the results they did?
2. What methodolgy was used?

Looking at it dispasionately, I'd send them to prison as what they did was rape, indecent assault, sexual abuse.

It is very difficult discussing this with you as if you are a homosexual your viewpoint/worldview will not accept Judeo-Christian absolutes with regard to sexual behaviour.

This is the fundamental:-) problem in discussions with secular humanists(weaselword) too of which much of the so called Psychiatric profession is made up of both overseas and here.