Marriage Bill will be voted down tomorrow

A few weeks ago I estimated that a minimum of 65 and maximum of 80 would vote against the Marriage (Minority Discrimination and Exclusion) Bill and that the actual vote would be somewhere in the middle (around 75) - of course the middle of that number is closer to 72 which is also closer to where I now think the numbers will fall.  I expect tomorrows vote to be around:

Labour - 49 against.
National - 10 against.
Greens - 6 against.
Maori - 4 against.
Progressive - 1 against.
NZ First - 1 against.

A total of 71 against.

Of course this should be higher.  ACTs 2 MPs should be voting for, but are not.  And I was hopeful that as many as 18 National MPs would vote against.

However, a 71 to 50 vote is still a strong political statement.  Hopefully the vote will be even better than that.  We shall see tomorrow.

Comments

[Maxim are Muppets]

Haahhahaha again, in your face Maxim. Have those Muppets ever won a single thing they have lobbied on?
God their bagmen must be wondering what on earth they fund this bunch of amateurs for!

[ADAR]

If I were in a constituency where the sitting MP was in support of the Marriage Bill I would be thinking carefully about how I was voting next election.
By attempting to spell out in legislation that which is already a reality (marriage being between a male and a female) is a complete wast of time. I wouldn't consider an MP working on legislation that has little point value for money.
Secondly, for MPs to support an attempt to circumvent the Bill of Rights to "advance" marriage sounds warning bells. What next? "Advancing" a particular race, religion or gender?
MPs who support the Marriage Bill are grasping at straws. Its sour grapes that the civil union legislation didn't bring about the cataclysmic doom to society that was predicted. I suggest these MPs bring their toys back and play nicely.

[Idiot/Savant]

ADAR: As will I. Anyone who votes to allow discrimination on the basis of mariage is not someone I want representing me.

[dave]

I note you are calling this bill the minority exclusion bill, perhaps in part alluding the fact that the A/G found the bill breached the Bill of Rights.

However Cullen is of the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman and on that aspect the bill does not breach the BOR.

As you consider the bill is an attack on same sex marriage,thus breaching the BOR, perhaps you could enlighten us all how restricting marriage to a man and a woman breaches the BOR. If you are unable to do so, how can you call it the minority exclusion bill based on anything other than your own prejudices.

[Tony Milne]

I call it that because that is the intention of the Bill. The Bill is specifically designed to exclude one group of people from being able to marry. I like to call a spade a spade. Hence, I called it the Marriage (Minority Discrimination and Exclusion) Bill. I disagree that Marriage should only be between one man and a woman. I think it is discrimination and it will one day be changed (even though I prefer Civil Union).

[dave]

Thats actually the intention of the Marriage Act. If you and your party colleagues feel so strongly that the intention should not be what the intention was in 1955, why then doesn't Labour draft a marriage emendment bill to change that intention, so that same sex couples can have access to Marriage.

[Tony Milne]

Because there would be few in parliament that would support such a measure. Unlike our conservative oponents we understand the importance of timing and how to count.

[Kiwi in Zurich]

I see that they lost the vote substantially. Good job too. Nasty piece of legislation.