New Zealand legalizes same-sex Marriage

[FaxModem1]

DW

Human Rights
New Zealand legalizes same-sex marriage

New Zealand has become the first nation in the Asia-Pacific region to legalize same-sex marriage. The tiny island country becomes the 13th worldwide to approve extending marriage rights to gay couples.

The bill, proposed by Labour MP Louisa Wall (pictured above), was passed by lawmakers on Wednesday 77 to 44. It was also given overwhelming support in a preliminary vote last month. It is likely to come into effect in August.

Leaders of most political parties encouraged lawmakers to vote according to their consciences, rather than along party lines.

The country, of 4.4 million people, gave same-sex relationships partial legal recognition in 2005, through the establishment of civil unions.

The bill was opposed by conservative political, social and religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church.

Hundreds of jubilant advocates have marked the bill's passing at New Zealand's parliament in Wellington, including a group who sang the country's national anthem in the indigenous Maori language.

Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina and Denmark. Uruguay last week approved a law its president Jose Mujica is expected to sign.

jr/kms (AP, AFP, dpa)

So, who wants to get married in Middle Earth?

[Stark]

More than a century after women got the vote, so maybe the rest of us have to wait a few more decades.

[Crossroads Inc.]

And Lo!
The Earth did NOT Break open!
The skies did NOT turn red with blood!
And righteous fire and brimstone did NOT Strike the wicked!

Really you think one of these days the fundis would notice this keeps happening and God does not a fuck giveth.

[bilateralrope]

We did get a bit of rain though. Which we do need.

So, who wants to get married in Middle Earth?

Austrailians.

More than 1000 gay Australian couples have already indicated they will travel to New Zealand to tie the knot.

Australian Marriage Equality had been running a survey since late last week asking gay couples if they would jump on a plane to make things official, national director Rodney Croome said.

"We expect there to be a flood of couples flying across the Tasman to marry in New Zealand. These are couples who would prefer to marry in their own country, but they are sick and tired of waiting for our own government to catch up."

Efforts to introduce gay marriage legislation in Australia have been defeated in Parliament.

Based on Australian census data and average wedding spending, the group has estimated the Australian economy is missing out on about NZ$850 million every three years by not introducing marriage equality.

"A significant slice of that will now be spent in New Zealand . . . that's how much the prejudice and indifference of the Australian Government is costing the Australian economy, and New Zealand will benefit as a result."

Tourism New Zealand should "make as much hay as they can" by marketing directly in Australia for the "pink dollar", Mr Croome said.

Tourism NZ spokesman Justin Watson said it marketed to all groups, and was developing new plans to push New Zealand as a "romance" destination.

"We welcome all travellers who choose New Zealand for their wedding destination, honeymoon or just a romantic getaway, but have no plans to target the gay and lesbian community specifically."

Sydney couple Emma Mansell and her fiancee Sarah-Louise Hopkins, both 28, plan to fly over and get married right before or after their informal September 28 ceremony at home.

Being able to have their love recognised legally - and so close to home - was hugely exciting, Ms Mansell said.

"I feel like it would be like having it at home anyway. It's just so important to have it legally recognised, and this means we don't have to trek across the world to do it."

Melbourne-based Kiwis Ashleigh Horman and Kate Edlin said being able to get married at home would mean the world to them.

"We consider it quite an important step. Having the same rights as everyone else is so crucial, especially when children come into the picture," Ms Horman said.

"Major countries and cities have made this step, so to be coming up right behind New York in doing this is incredibly special."

New Zealand marriages would not be fully recognised in Australia, but would be classed as civil unions in Tasmania and New South Wales, Mr Croome said.

"When they return and walk through Australian customs, their solemn vows of love and commitment will come to nothing. But this will be a game-changer, because Australia won't be able to ignore it any more."

Greater Wellington Regional Council chairwoman Fran Wilde, who spearheaded the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986 while an MP, said the marriage equality bill showed how far society had come.

"Relative to things in the 1980s this has had so much more support. It's about individual people who love each other getting to stand up and finally have that recognised."

We already knew that same-sex marriage is good for the economy.

[The Xeelee]

Until the national healthcare system has to pay to treat all the HIV infections. That can't be good for the economy.

[bilateralrope]

Until the national healthcare system has to pay to treat all the HIV infections. That can't be good for the economy.

I doubt that marriage becoming legal causes any change to how often they are having sex. If you have any evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[The Xeelee]

Errr... everyone knows you can't have sex before marriage.

[Stark]

That's an interesting argument, because its arguable that the stigma and discrimination against homosexuality was a major driver in the lifestyle choices of many homosexuals in the past.

I mean, I fuck my wife in the ass. I don't cruise singles bars looking for other women to fuck in the ass. Somehow, I don't have HIV! Maybe pushing homosexuals out of formal relationships had all kinds of negative impacts on the homosexual community, well beyond the simple rights issue and into identity, attitudes towards relationships, etc.

[The Xeelee]

Anal Sex is murder.

[Stark]

And thus, marginalising and attempting to repress homosexuality actually made the ongoing situation worse. It's almost like ignorant reactionism doesn't achieve anything but feelgood definition of tribal groups.

[The Xeelee]

Stop using big words.

[Stark]

'Marginalising' Isn't a big word. It's actually smaller than 'New Zealand'.

I think. Shit, it isn't.

Anyway, I think its interesting that smaller countries (NZ specifically) appear to have less inertia on social issues. NZ was I believe the first country to grant women the vote, and their population is less than Sydney (a community I'm pretty sure would love to take the vote away from all kinds of people).

[The Xeelee]

New Zealand is two words. What are you, a democrat?

[Ultonius]

I know this is off-topic, but where is the author getting

tiny island country

from, when New Zealand actually has a slightly larger area than the UK? To me, that phrase implies something the size of Tuvalu or Nauru.

[The Xeelee]

New Zealand is a fictional place moron.

[Stark]

Probably cause Mercator sucks? I guess not since latitude is similar. Probably land size weighted by population, and NZ is pretty low population. I mean Taiwan is four times the population on 10% the land area (and probably qualifies as 'tiny island country').

[Simon_Jester]

'Marginalising' Isn't a big word. It's actually smaller than 'New Zealand'.

I think. Shit, it isn't.

Anyway, I think its interesting that smaller countries (NZ specifically) appear to have less inertia on social issues. NZ was I believe the first country to grant women the vote...

Random thought: in the US, the first province-level place to extend the vote to women was Wyoming, which did this in 1869, before Wyoming was even a state. Wyoming is now one of the most stupidly conservative states in the union, alas.

Probably not coincidentally, Wyoming had a male to female ratio of something like (as I recall) 6:1 at the time. They may have had an ulterior motive.

I have no reason to believe that anything similar might have happened in 19th century New Zealand, colonization patterns weren't the same, but I wanted to mention it because it would certainly be of historical interest if it might have been relevant to the issue. Do you know if there was an unbalanced gender ratio then/there?

[Stark]

You really make me bury my head in my hands sometimes, simple.

And no, I don't believe men were ever more than 2/3 of the population, so your ridiculous not-really thing doesn't go anywhere. It was probably more related to culture and wealth at the time.

[DieselJester]

New Zealand is a fictional place moron.

You apparantly have either A: Never taken or failed Geography in school, and/or B: Never opened a world atlas or even so much looked at a globe in your entire life.

But I digress...

On topic: I think that this is very progressive of them to formally legalize same-sex marriage. Makes me wonder, though, if (hyopthetically) a legally married couple in NZ were to immigrate to the US, would US Law have to recognize the marriage regardless of what's going on now in politics?

[TimothyC]

On topic: I think that this is very progressive of them to formally legalize same-sex marriage. Makes me wonder, though, if (hyopthetically) a legally married couple in NZ were to immigrate to the US, would US Law have to recognize the marriage regardless of what's going on now in politics?

As of this moment, at the federal level, the marriage would not be recognized (DOMA is the current law of the land). This is exactly the situation that has brought about US v. Windsor (a couple marries outside of the US, and said marriage is not recognized inside the US, only in their case it was in Canada, not New Zealand). At the state level would depend on a state-by-state basis.

[Sea Skimmer]

First they ban nuclear weapons, and now this? Bloody end of civilization.

[DieselJester]

On topic: I think that this is very progressive of them to formally legalize same-sex marriage. Makes me wonder, though, if (hyopthetically) a legally married couple in NZ were to immigrate to the US, would US Law have to recognize the marriage regardless of what's going on now in politics?

As of this moment, at the federal level, the marriage would not be recognized (DOMA is the current law of the land). This is exactly the situation that has brought about US v. Windsor (a couple marries outside of the US, and said marriage is not recognized inside the US, only in their case it was in Canada, not New Zealand). At the state level would depend on a state-by-state basis.

Oh really? I didn't know that Windsor and Spyer had been married in Canada. I'm going to have to read more on the case.

[Simon_Jester]

You really make me bury my head in my hands sometimes, simple.

And no, I don't believe men were ever more than 2/3 of the population, so your ridiculous not-really thing doesn't go anywhere. It was probably more related to culture and wealth at the time.

Stark, perhaps you misunderstand my motives.

Do you really think I'm going "well, Wyoming did this because of comically unbalanced sex ratio, so New Zealand must have?"

No, I'm going "could that have had anything to do with it? Probably not. Does someone who actually knows the history of 19th century New Zealand have anything to say about it?"

Which makes you sad. Poor Stark.

[Flagg]

You really make me bury my head in my hands sometimes, simple.

And no, I don't believe men were ever more than 2/3 of the population, so your ridiculous not-really thing doesn't go anywhere. It was probably more related to culture and wealth at the time.

Stark, perhaps you misunderstand my motives.

Do you really think I'm going "well, Wyoming did this because of comically unbalanced sex ratio, so New Zealand must have?"

No, I'm going "could that have had anything to do with it? Probably not. Does someone who actually knows the history of 19th century New Zealand have anything to say about it?"

Which makes you sad. Poor Stark.

Considering the fact that Stark is a filthy kiwi and answered your dumb question, you just made yourself look pretty stupid.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, it makes me look stupid to think Stark's tone is ridiculous. Poor dumb me. Right.

It would be entertaining to see Stark stuck in a box with new chemical-imbalance Xeelee; they deserve each other.


Anyhow, I do have another question: Does anyone know what the differences are between the issues under question in Windsor and Pedersen? Both cases seem to be about the same passages of DOMA and operating under more or less the same arguments; is there a reason the Court is hearing both?