God is on our side?

Provocative title I know, but I couldn't help it given the number of Exclusive Brethren surrounding me during the first reading praying for the Marriage Bill to pass. BTW - I don't actually believe that God is on anyones side!

I rushed up to Parliament (to be honest the cricket was occupying my attention to a much greater extent!) to hear the first reading of the Marriage Bill knowing that the numbers were pretty strongly against.  I looked around the public gallery and saw some familiar friendly faces to my left and right (surrounded by Exclusive Brethren), and then there was me, just me, all on my own in the speakers gallery surrounded by not so familiar, but admittedly friendly (they got more unfriendly as the debate progressed) faces of the Exclusive Brethren.

I was interested to note that there were no media in the media gallery.  None.  Nudda.  No'one.

Gordon Copeland kicked off the debate
Pretty boring speech which just outlined the Bill.  Simon Power kept yelling out to him "it confirms the act".  His main point was that it would pre-empt the possibility of challenges to the marriage act in the future (which is just daft).  He pointed out that Quilter said Parliament was to decide the issue - which of course contradicted his arguments that an activist court was going to legalise gay marriage!  When he talked about marriage courses the Nats laughed and put there head in their hands.  When Gordon read his poll that said 57% thing the Marriage Act should say marriage is one man and one woman Simon Power yelled out "It does".  Said National would deeply disappoint their voters if they didn't vote for the Bill.

Katherine Rich
One of the best speeches.  The present law is one man one woman and the Bill adds nothing.  Pointed out that Quilter, Ministry of Justice, Crown Law, Chapman Tripp, and their top lawyer Chris Finlayson (note she didn't say Richard Worth - the factions are becoming clearer) all say marriage is one man and one woman.  Made good points about United Future not having a monopoly on concern for NZ families and long term relationships.  Said the Bill would give every "banjo playing, redneck, homophobe" the excuse to attack parts of our community.  Said her parents had a pub called "live and let live".  At the end of her speech 2 Exclusive Brethren men stormed out, clearly unimpressed with Rich and National.  Looked like he was going to try and find Dr Don Brash.

Richard Worth
Said a lot, but didn't make much sense.  Basically said introducing it would be a hurdle to same-sex marriage becoming a reality in the future.  Quoted from an Aussie politician but got his name wrong, which Lianne Dalziel pointed out.  A tad embarrassing for Richard.  Chris Finlayson made a much more intelligent and coherent speech.

Lianne Dalziel
A matter of fact speech which rebutted each clause.  Similar points to Katherine Rich, but also pointed out the inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act, and how it would allow active discrimination and exclusion of people who were not just Civil Unioned and de-facto, but single people, windows, and divorced people - including treating kids of single parents differently.  This Bill was 'turning back the clock'.

Peter Brown
Heaps of interjecting during his speech, so I couldn't hear much.  Said he didn't play the banjo but he wasn't sure about the other things (redneck, homophobe).  He pointed out that Katherine Rich referred to Chris Finlayson was their top lawyer, not Richard Worth.  Talked about the Exclusive Brethren funding the Nats campaign, and now some were voting against what they wanted.

Metiria Turei
She needs to slow down a bit when she speaks!  Made similar points to others, but also talked about a 1 pager that the Exclusive Brethren had put around every MP that day, using only religious arguments.  She attacked the Exclusive Brethren and National.

Hone Harawira
In my opinion this was the best speech.  It was personal and emotional - and he got a few laughs.  Said he was married - he didn't know at the time but now he does, under the Marriage Act 1955.  He said one of their MPs so much believes in marriage he's done it more than once.  Talked about Civil Unions providing the framework for other relationships to be recognised.  A father of 7 (a Nat yelled out "well done").  He said he didn't ask any of his children what their sexual orientation is - but whatever it is, it wouldn't change his love for them.  While the discussion in the caucus wasn't all of the one view, and he was considering a split vote, they all decided to vote against.

Chris Finlayson
Also a good speech.  Talked about not supporting same-sex marriage, but that the law is clear, and despite the title (Clarification) there was nothing that needed clarifying.  Said lots of legal stuff I didn't understand.  Said the issue would need to be dealt with at an international level at some point - in terms of consistency across the board.  He said any court case contesting Quilter would take at least 2 1/2 years, in which time Parliament could pass a similar Bill then.  He said same-sex marriage isn't around the corner, and United Future trying to convince people that it was was causing unnecessary distress.

Judy Turner
Talked about a dog docking story that didn't make a lot of sense.  The rest was pretty boring and pointless.

Eric Roy
Also didn't add much.  He said that even if Katherine Rich and Chris Finlayson were right, the public still wanted the Bill codified in law - constituents want it enshrined in law.  The Exclusive Brethren exploded into applause after his speech and Lianne Dalziel called out "They must have put a lot of effort in your seat Eric" in reference to the Exclusive Brethren push polling in particular provincial seats.  I must say it was very odd that they didn't clap for any other MP (even those against) except Eric Roy, a seat where there is strong evidence of the Exclusive Brethren push polling for a 'change of government'.

Martin Gallagher
Congratulated Katherine Rich on a very good speech.  Talked about being a conservative and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  He said that if there was a successful challenge to the current law, he would support an amendment at that time to define marriage as one man and one woman.

Gordon Copeland
Gordon finished the debate off.  Made several bad mistakes.  1) what sounded like a desperate plea that there were probably several mistakes with the Bill, but that sending it to Select Committee would help iron them out.  2) Said  how MPs voted would determin whether they "are for marriage or against marriage".  Probably not the best of statements for waverers making up their mind.  3) Similarly, insulting the waverers by saying voting for this bill is "what leadership is about" is probably not a smart idea.  A Nat laughed at his speech and called out "he's changed my vote".

Conclusion
The speeches for the Bill were pretty poor.  There is much better 'conservative' MP firepower to throw at such Bills.  Clearly the likes of Bill English thought it was a waste of time even trying.

The conservatives probably need to learn the art of 1) tactics 2) timing and 3) knowing how to count.

The Exclusive Brethren are clearly very pissed off with their good buddies the National Party!  If National had block voted for the Bill (their position before the election) the vote would have been 61 to 59.  It still would have failed, but with only 1 vote in it at first reading.

Comments

[Craig Ranapia]

Tony:

Well yes the title if provocative - while I'm not exactly distressed that this bill went down, please don't mock people's faith because you don't like their politics. And, as far as I'm aware, the God I believe in doesn't vote, belongs to no political party and hasn't lobbied be recently.

Having said that, I'm not encouraged by the speeches I heard where there was no particular objection to the thinking behind the bill. As far as I'm concerned, there's still a clear majority of MPs of all parties who don't support marital equality. It really makes no difference whether it's motivated by bigotry or opportunism or even, in a few cases, genuine principle that I may not agree with but respect. (At least the last class of people are open to rational argument.)

And I think there's some people who really need to build a bridge and fucking get over the fact that the EB exist. I'm sure the point scoring is all big fun, but this debate was a wee bit more serious.

[tim barclay]

The National Party does not block vote on conscience issues, only the Labour Party does that, indeed the only issue where strict discipline applies in National is confidence and supply, unlike the Labour Party.

[tim barclay]

PS Tony: God is a rightie if you believe in the laws of nature, especially evolution.

[Ross Browne]

Tony, you would probably enjoy this speech on religious tolerence

http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=5583

[Tony Milne]

Hey Ross. I agree with Chris. I don't think I've said anything Anti-Brethren. The title refers to my annoyance when people (i.e Destiny Church) claim they are doing Gods work.

In fact, the two comments during the speeches that seemed like a direct attack at the Brethren were from Katherine Rich and Chris Finlayson. Rich make her comment about banjo playing, redneck, homophobes, and Chris made a comment along the lines of not liking 'feel good legislation, we'll leave that to the priests' - which people in the gallery took as being directed at the Brethren.

[Ross Browne]

You might well agree witht the speech Tony, but I suggest the PM doesn't. No one in the Labour Party has yet adequatley explained why accepting help from the Ratana Church is ok, but to accept it from the Brethren isn't! Or why the AG seems to think comparing them to the Teleban is acceptable.

It's all very well talking about how liberal the Labour Party caucus is, but the words don't match the rhetoric.

[Craig Ranapia]

To be quite blunt, Tony, I cringed when Katherine badly let down an otherwise rational and thoughtful speech with that "banjo playing etc." crack - which of course is the one part that got all the media face time.

One criticism I had of the CUB campaign was that (for me) much of the rhetoric took on an air of self-righteous condescention and outright vitriol that was not only remarkably similar to the rhetoric of 'Brian The Bish' et. al., but only served to alienate a lot of Christians and political conservatives who might have been open to a more moderate tone.

I actually think if you're going to talk the talk about 'inclusion' and 'tolerance', you just discredit yourself when your rhetoric is every bit as exclusive and intolerant and those you claim to despise.

[Xavier]

God you're an idiot Tim. You obviously have no idea about the 'laws' of evolution. What, pray tell, makes God a rightie?

[tim barclay]

Xavier you obviously do not know the difference between capitalism and socialism. Righties believe in capitalism i.e. survival of the fittest and competition, and so does god. Lefties are all about indemnifying failure, god does not do that.

[Idiot/Savant]

Tim: So god's a social darwinist?

No wonder people don't believe in it.

[Ross Browne]

Oh, the quote about sending messages from Chris was:

"Some say the Bill sends an important message to New Zealand families that marriage is important. I would have thought New Zealanders knew that without the need for Parliament to send legislative messages. In any event, I have an innate distaste for feel good legislation. Leave messages of that kind to priests and pastors."

[ADAR]

Craig: Of Tony I think "despise" is something he tries not to do. Tony may despise a person's position on an issue if he thinks its flawed, or based on prejudice, but I have never known him to be anything other than gentlemanly in his debates. You speak of Christians and political conservatives who may have been open to a more moderate tone. Show me an example of when they entered into the spirit and asked the likes of Destiny to moderate their stance. If there was an air of self righteousness from defenders of the CUB I think it was entirely understandable. Gays, lesbians and all manner of minorities have been subjected to centuries of persecution and intolerance from religious quarters. My understanding of the meaning of "righteous" is "moral" or "virtuous". I think it is most virtuous to stand up and be counted in the struggle to amend those past injustices. One further point Craig, if you will suffer reading me a little longer is in regard to your asking Tony not to "mock people's faith because you don't like their politics". In my humble opinion the religious quarters are using their religion in politics to justify their positions. Hence, in this regard faith and politics become somewhat intertwined. Lastly, you go on to say that the god you believe in doesn't lobby, belong to a political party or vote. If, as we are often told, there is only one "true" god, presumably the one you believe in lest you be a heretic, and he abstains from such worldly shennanigins as political mud slinging, why then does His name pop up so frequently in the arguments from the faithful? They claim to know His will, they tell gays and lesbians about it frequently, yet if He is a political fence sitter, how is it the faithful have come up with the idea He supports their prejudice?

[scott]

Actually, I would posit that the god of the new testament is a lefty - that whole love thy nieghbour and tolerence message. It seems however that those who often claim to be working for him/her/it tend to miss that little point.

S

[Craig Ranapia]

ADAR:

I'm not joking when I say I've faced a damn sight less hostility being out in my church (Catholic, FWIW) and as a member and officeholder in the National Party that from the so-called "inclusive and tolerant" gay left.

As for your comment, "the religious quarters are using their religion in politics to justify their positions." Well, yes. But if you find people's religious beliefs informing their politics so objectionable, then I suggest you pick up any reasonable history of the US civil rights movement. Martin Luther King was far from the only one who explicitly defined segregation as not only a political injustice, but a profound moral evil that spat in the face of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's funny what you can achieve when you treat people with civility and respect, make a genuine effort to understand where they're coming from, and hold a dialogue that's based on debate rather than name-calling. You can be passionate about a cause, but if you find the likes of Brian The Bish so objectionable, adopting his rhetoric isn't only a wee bit hypocritical but it's also dumb strategy. You don't affect lasting social change by preaching to the converted and pissing on everyone else.

[Tony Milne]

I think Craig does make a good point. It is very easy to demonise people you disagree with (especially in print and on blogs!) or to paint them as black and white. It's a trap that I fall into myself. We do it because its easy, because its convenient, and it suits out world view sometimes to not consider that the people we are opposing are human beings who in most of their life are ordinary people trying to get on with their lives and be good people.

But part of why we do it is because sometimes those peoples views hurt us a lot. I think about the gay kid at my neighbouring school who killed himself in 1998 because of the views of people like Brian Tamaki, and I find it hard not to demonise him in my own mind.

But I also disagree with Craig. It would also me a mistake to ignore political rhetoric and emotion, because it is that (and one would hope also a good argument) that ultimately convinces people to your point of view. Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" is full of emotion and rhetoric. And sometimes you have to paint a picture of your opponents that may not be a flattering one.

I think it is an area where Labour hasn't done a great job in. We've been too focussed on facts, figures, achievements, and arguments, and not enough time appealing to people's emotions and values.

And Craig is right. Effecting long-term change is about people's hearts and minds - and that requires positive vision, not destructive attack.

[ADAR]

Craig: I completely agree with your point that King used faith in this way, I used to teach history. I also agree with your comment about the effectiveness of treating people with civility and respect. Gandhi (I can never remember where to put the 'h')of course took that stance and taught us that it is possible to achieve one's goals without stooping to ape the behaviour of one's opponents.
Martin Luther King was using his faith to try and lift people up, to rectify injustices suffered. What I see from the more vocal relgious corners is an effort to use their faith to keep people down, and inflict more injustice. Some of them I am sure are operating from a position of unbridled prejudice, in the name of religion but I am not so unreasonable as to suppose that the majority don't truly believe in the legitimacy of what they are saying.
Its not that I find people using religion to inform their politics objectionable, as in Martin Luther King's case I think he had the christian message harnessed for good.What I do find objectionable is the use of the christiam message (as I understand it) for legitimising the keeping of gays and lesbians down as second class citizens (in the CUB/Marriage Bill cases). Our differences of opinion aside Craig, may I say I also have a good friend who is was (is still?) part of Young Nats, gay and from a staunch Catholic family. His family have always welcomed me into their home and when he came out recently they reconciled their faith with the reality he and his boyfriend go around for tea every Sunday. I am not anti religious, indeed I am Anglican (at least nominally), my issue with organised relgion is what I perceive to be its use in hurting people.

[redfish]

I think God simply cannot fall into any human categories of behaviour or political opinion. That's what makes Him so great!

Can we be a little careful about how we talk about Christians? Let's not forget that many, many Christians are left-wing, queer, in favour of human rights, liberal, etc, etc. Just because someone's a Christian it doesn't mean they're going to hate certain groups of people or be against certain freedoms - or even if they are, not all of them would force those beliefs on others.

[Pip]

God as a social darwinist? I don't think so.

Tim, survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean stomping all over others and being in it purely for yourself.

In social animals (bees, chimpanzees, humans etc) those individuals who are best at cooperating frequently do best in the breeding stakes. There is competition in cooperation.

There's a reasonably strong argument that god created us as social animals cos he's a filthy dirty socialist. (The only bit where that argument falls down is the 'god created us' bit, of course).

But, you know, if horses had a god it'd look like a horse. If capitalists have a god it'll look like a capitalist... ho hum...

[ADAR]

Redfish: A valid point to say that christians come from all walks of life. You will notice I have not lumped all christians together into one homogenous group. My reference to the kind of christian position I oppose is indicated by my saying the more vocal quarters (which don't tend to be the more moderate of any group), or specifically, for example, Destiny.

[scott]

Tont's comments about the gay kid who killed himself is at the crux of this issue -those who provide a philosophical mindset to allow things like that to occur are encouraged by people such as tamaki and I have to say having heard some of the comments made by MP's certain members of the house need to take some responsibility also.

Incidentally, Survival of the fittest does *not* imply a stronger species 'triumphing' over a weaker one, if it was, we as humans - one the weakest animals on earth would have perished a long time ago. Survival of the fittest refers to an organism possessing a genetic trait tha t gives them an advantage. This is very different to the term social darwinisim as outlined by gobineu and later expanded on by Houston Stewart Chamberlain and adopted by a certain Austrian Corporal.

[mark]

This is a great thread. (Well, except for tim).

Great posts Craig.

[Tony Milne]

All sorts of people, from many different walks of life claim their one God is the true God, and that God backs up their morality and political beliefs (including Graeme Capill I might add).

That's why I'm happy to be a member of the Rationalists and Humanists society!

However, I appreciated the role that Christians for Civil Unions played in the Civil Union campaign - not necessarily because I believe that the Bible backs up their moral the political views, but because their voice provided a Christian alternative to the voice of Destiny Church and others.

Of course, God does inform people’s views of the world and particular pieces of legislation – particular ‘moral’ issues such as abortion and issues around sex and sexuality. My experience is that the bible and God are used to confirm pre-existing idea and values, rather than the other way around.

"Rightist believe in capitalism i.e. survival of the fittest and competition, and so does god". Tim Barclay.

Tim, I believe part of our challenge as human beings is to live together in a society that achieves the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest proportion of the worlds population. Surely our success as human beings to date has been our ability to co-operate and work together? And our most spectacular failures when we work against each other in wars and other conflict? Human beings have a unique ability to see things from other people’s perspective. What makes us a decent society is not our individual wants, but our collective responsibilities. What makes us a decent world is the responsibility of our fittest countries. And what makes us a decent society is the responsibility of our fittest citizens.