The New Zealand state continues to flout the rule of law: no matter what you think of Mr Hotchin, a state that can freeze an individual's life for twenty one months, without trial, or criminal charge, is not a state free men should have a bar of. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.
This type of issue is as easy as knowing that if two consenting adults want to marry each other, no one is harmed, so it's nobody else's business, certainly not politicians, or their electorates. For those politicians equivocating on this, then you are equivocating on giving adults something as simple as choice. What are you thinking? What makes you think you are fit to be our jailer? Get out of private, grown-up relationships; get out of our heads; get out of our lives. This is a country, not a kindy.
Spot on Mark.
ReplyDeleteMike.
Cheers Mike. And as stated, this stuff is not hard. Politicians ... How depressing.
ReplyDeleteLouisa Wall's bill is about defining a term for legislative purposes. It would define 'marriage' as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." In philosophy (semantics) we call it a stipulative definition. No big deal. I really don't care if the government changes the wording on one of its stupid forms. (But Blair Mulholland does. He has an excellent post on the topic of gay marriage here.) Simple, not hard. Sideshow stuff ... or is it?
ReplyDeleteReed has raised some interesting points, and I've been thinking out loud on SOLO and on Eternal Vigilance. The issue has to do with New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act that outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation.
Suppose that I'm a conservative Christian florist. Whereas, previously, gay couples would come to me to order flowers to celebrate their upcoming civil union ceremony, and I have obliged, they will now come to me to order flowers to celebrate their "wedding". Will I be free to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to go fuck themselves (metaphorically speaking, of course!)? Or will I oblige, for fear of being demonised by the state, the MSM and the sheeple?
I think there's a potentially serious issue here.
Meanwhile, of course, Hotchin's assets remain frozen ...
That last paragraph does hold a valid concern, Richard. Obviously, and for exactly the same principle, just as a gay couple should be able to marry, so should a conservative Christian florist be free to be the bigot his God tells him to be ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not making light of it, you're right. Perhaps the real problem is we've got far too many laws, and we're far too over-governed.
Perhaps the real problem is we've got far too many laws, and we're far too over-governed.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the real problem, in this case, is the Human Rights Act. See here.