Friday, December 02, 2005



A call for consistency on the marriage bill

During the Civil Unions debate, Don Brash masked his cowardly pandering to bigotry behind a cloak of crude populism: he refused to vote for the bill on the basis that such issues should be decided by a referendum, not Parliament. In Parliament, during the bill's second-reading debate, he declared that

Neither members of Parliament nor journalists or commentators have any special knowledge or superior judgment, as compared with our fellow citizens, on such crucial institutions as the family and marriage. Accordingly, I believe that there should be a referendum on this issue, so that all adult New Zealanders have an opportunity to express their view on it.

With the vote on the Marriage Bill coming up, he should be held to that position. The bill does not include any provision for a referendum, and so in order to be consistent, Brash (and indeed, all those in National and NZFirst who voted against Civil Unions on similar grounds) should vote against it. And if he doesn't, it will be crystal clear exactly how devoid of principle his earlier call for a referendum was.

6 comments:

I see the logic in your argument, but I'm uneasy about going down the referendum road here. I'm all for representative democracy (as who is not?), but the problem I have with referenda involving issues of civil rights or social progress is that the law must often lead, and people follow. It is not in the interest of the franchised to share power willingly.

In few cultures, if any, has the male populace voted to extend suffrage to women. Usually the courts mandate it, or the legislature enacts a new law. Would Afrikaners have voted to end apartheid, or white Southerners in the US to end Jim Crow laws? I think we all know the answers. It takes real leaders (or those who feel pressure) to take those first bold steps and risk conservative backlash until, inevitably, new rights do not lead to anarchy.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 03:04:00 PM

I don't think we should have a referendum. This is a consistency argument, and it's about what Brash etc think (or have said they think) - not what I think. They've made themselves a nice petard here, and I intend to hoist them by it either way.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 12/02/2005 03:47:00 PM

Having a referendum to change the law or have a new law is a lot different than having a referendum to clarify the law, and even you should know that. It will be a different story if this bill is passed and then they try to reverse it later by allowing for unions other than a man and a woman to have access to marriage.

Then you can write your post on whether Don Brash should ask for THAT decisions to be a referendum.

Posted by Swimming : 12/02/2005 05:24:00 PM

I'm about to write a Gaynz.Com article arguing how this whole debate reveals that we badly need a written constitution in this country, with an equality rights
clause akin to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

No referenda.

C.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/03/2005 10:56:00 AM

Dave: It would be nice to see those politicians who have used populism as an mask for bigotry front up and argue that. Strangely, though, none are. But then, that would require that they took their call for a referenda seriously in the first place.

(I'd also note that this bill is a lot more than a "clarification". It is a statement, on behalf of all New Zealanders, of exactly what we think of gay equality - and every bit as much of one as the Civil Union Bill. Again, if you thought the latter should be decided by referenda, then you should be consistent.)

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 12/03/2005 01:15:00 PM

anonymous,

your problem is that that could equally work the other way. I could propose that pictures of me should be ut up in every house and resistance be brutally crushed. In time everyone would come to believe me and we would all live in New Nth Korea.

It is difficult to see how you are supporting anythign other than "I am right" therefore "the rules that allow me to win are the right ones" You may indeed be right but a concervative isn't going to find that a convincing argument.

Having said that politicians should be cornered into fronting up with the real reasons why they made decisions (by making them vote on a less ambiguous vote).

rather like forcing the democrats into voting on withdrawl or forcing bush to veto/not veto torture.

Posted by Genius : 12/17/2005 01:55:00 PM