Not a priority – Key

Dominion Post 14 May 2012
Gay marriage is an issue for “a small group of New Zealanders” and the Government has not made it a priority because of the tough economic times, Prime Minister John Key says. The issue has flared since US President Barack Obama backed gay marriage last week. Both Key and Labour leader David Shearer have indicated they would not stand in the way of moves to allow gay marriage in New Zealand. Key today indicated he would be “more than happy” to vote for the first reading of a bill allowing gay marriage. However, no such bill has yet been entered in to the member’s ballot. Once in the ballot, it would have to be drawn before it could be debated. Key today indicated the Government had no intention of pushing the idea. “It’s not my number one issue, that’s absolutely for sure,” he said. The previous Labour-led Government had backed “a lot” of conscience issues but his Government had not, which was a reflection of the “difficult economic times,” Key said. “We need to use our precious time in Parliament really to resolve those issues. We accept this is an issue for a small group of New Zealanders.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6915784/Key-Lets-have-debate-on-gay-marriage

Share

7 comments for “Not a priority – Key

  1. WestieBoy
    14 May 2012 at 11:56 pm

    I feel disgusted and appalled when you refer to these folk as “gay”.

    It is an acronym they developed in the 70’s and 80’s because they did not like being called “queer”, which, funnily enough, simply means “strange or unusual”.

    Instead, they wanted to be Good As You (G.A.Y.).

    This is what leaves me feeling so disgusted: if you cannot stand to be referred to as “strange or unusual” (i.e. queer) then stop being queer.

    Before all the PC-bleeding-hearts get on the “you CAN’T say that”, just remember that ALL of the research shows this is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

    Nothing more and nothing less.

    In nature, homosexuality is a self-defeating prophecy because their can be no offspring.

    Just because homosexuals have mastered masturbation and a turkey-baster does not mean they should have children.

    It takes both a man and a woman to make a baby just as it takes a Mum and a Dad to raise a productive adult.

    Having two “mums” and/or two “dads” does not support raising psychologically healthy children into healthy adults.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman for a reason.

    New Zealand would not be so far up the proverbial creek were it not for the PC-bleeding-hearts insisting we accommodate these anomalous beings.

  2. margaret
    15 May 2012 at 12:24 am

    Has anyone asked John Key or David Shearer how they will handle the question of polygamous or incestuous marriages.
    If they dismiss the possiblity, on what grounds would they suggest, that any other combinations of “marriage” could be denied – ie, what is the bottom line?

  3. Bob
    15 May 2012 at 2:30 am

    Exactly!

  4. Rhona MacKenzie
    16 May 2012 at 4:22 pm

    To be honest, I think that while I applaud Family First and the Conservative Party’s stand on this issue, we should acknowledge that opposing homosexual and lesbian rights is flogging a dead horse.

    The euthanasia issue is more pressing and should be the focus of pro-life initiatives. After all, Key has also said there’ll be a euthanasia law review during the forthcoming term of Parliament.

  5. Alex
    18 May 2012 at 10:09 am

    The issue is not about polygamous or incestuous marriages. The issue is gay marriage. You’ve made a common fallacy which a lot of people use to dismiss gay marriage, it’s called the slippry slop argument.

    It usually goes, “If gays get married, what’s next? People marrying their dogs?” It’s hyperbol and suspicious. The argument is about two consenting adults.

  6. Bob
    18 May 2012 at 2:22 pm

    No – the argument is discrimination and equality.

    Why is your discrimination against polygamy ok?

  7. margaret
    18 May 2012 at 4:57 pm

    In response to Alex’s comment, dismissing any possible connection between the promotion of gay marriage and incestuous marriage – that very proposal (incestuous)marriage and relationships “in certain circumstances,” was in it’s very early stage of promotion during the Helen Clark era. I have viewed official documentation of this intent…..
    Societies always changes – for better or worse…it is in the history books… nothing new under the sun…
    Those that tamper with the family unit and ignore an ordered morality,are destined to self destruct – history attests to this.

Comments are closed.