Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
and it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues...
I'm sure Michael Laws would agree with you -- at least when he's using the bully pulpits of talkback radio and public office to tell children to shut the fuck up. (On the other hand, I don't know if putting an extra consonant in 'Wanganui' is worth the hot air and nervous energy that's been expended on that issue.)
Still, I'm sure yappy dogs like Emma and I will hold our tongues about marriage equality until world peace, global hunger and global warming has been addressed. OK?
-
Still, I'm sure yappy dogs like Emma and I will hold our tongues about marriage equality until world peace, global hunger and global warming has been addressed. OK?
There's an equivalence Paul never made.
As Graeme admits, this is a point of principle which may make no practical difference.
Which isn't the case with marriage equality, marriage does have a number of practical differences from the alternatives.
There's also no downside to allowing more people to get married. There's flow on effects from VSM. As Graeme admits, there can be justification for the state not extending it on that basis.
-
Kyle:
My point is that "it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues" is a pretty crappy way to try and shut down a debate. I totally get and respect why plenty of people around here don't get as invested and passionate about same-sex marriage as Emma and I. Sincerely, I do. Or why, as I said way up thread, Russell gets about as passionate about VSM and I do about broadcasting and IT policy he's very much involved in.
But if you want to take it to the reductio ad absurdum, I think a woman in an African warzone who has to dodge mines and heavily armed warlords to get access to clean water would love to have the problems we all bitch around on PAS on a daily basis.
-
I didn't see Paul using it to shut down debate. I saw him using it to take a poke at Roger Douglas, who apparently can't find anything more worthy of his attention in parliament.
-
And there does seem to be something different about the quality of Roger's attention this time around.
-
I didn't see Paul using it to shut down debate. I saw him using it to take a poke at Roger Douglas, who apparently can't find anything more worthy of his attention in parliament.
Indeed. Should have more clearly indicated tongue-in-cheek.
If you prefer to avoid issues and conduct politics based on personalities you say whatever you like about him.
So I'll assume that too is tongue-in-cheek...
I appreciate the points you've made, I've addressed several of them directly (and I generally play a pretty straight bat on most issues here).
But it's not like we've not be round this issue before. In my memory, it's been around since about 1990. I don't begrudge you or anyone who feels that it's not resolved satisfactorily. However, I don't see the injustice as being nearly so great to warrant a fourth (or is it fifth) spot on the legislative program.
And I don't think it shutting down a debate to say that...
Still, I'm sure yappy dogs like Emma and I will hold our tongues about marriage equality until world peace, global hunger and global warming has been addressed. OK?
Craig, that wasn't my point but I'll grant that I wasn't careful in my comments. What I mean is that a solution that addresses the objections is readily available, some would argue that it's in place. Up-thread I proposed a simple solution. Later, there was a clear statement suggesting the "limitation" could well be justified.
This isn't a matter parliament necessarily needs to address, if anything, it's odd that they have/are. Parliament's attention is, however, required to address other issues you've noted.
And there does seem to be something different about the quality of Roger's attention this time around.
Ahem, well it certainly seems that way to me.
-
Craig, that wasn't my point but I'll grant that I wasn't careful in my comments. What I mean is that a solution that addresses the objections is readily available, some would argue that it's in place.
As some would with the Civil Union Act?
-
As some would with the Civil Union Act?
Well, no, not in the context of our little side-bar conversation.
Unless I've misunderstood, marriage is only available for a bloke and a sheila, so the inequality remains. Compare this with the solution I proposed whereby SA's automatically exempt a student who applies on concientious grounds... there's no breach of human rights, no need for parliament, nor student referenda for that matter... Roger can go and attend to those really important matters that dragged him out of retirement...
-
Then why not let me have it =)
But this is pointless. You're pretending it's about human rights, and it's just not. This is not a freedom of association issue, despite your attempt to pretend it is. Putting your name on the membership list does not restrict your freedom to associate with anyone you want to. You want freedom from being associated with the students assoc. That's just not what "freedom of association" means.
My view is that the students assocs are part of the universities in a real sense. So I don't see why the govt is involved at all: it seems obvious to me that the universities should be completely free in this regard. And if they choose to administer a certain part of their university by calling it the "student's association" they should be free to.
-
You want freedom from being associated with the students assoc. That's just not what "freedom of association" means.
I'm pretty sure it is. If the National Government decided to administer part of the roading system by requiring every driver to become a member of the AA - even though it uses members' money to push for large public roading projects (something with which many drivers have strong disagreement) - people would be crying out.
"You want freedom from being associated with the AA" wouldn't cut it.
My view is that the students assocs are part of the universities in a real sense. So I don't see why the govt is involved at all: it seems obvious to me that the universities should be completely free in this regard.
That would, of course, require a law change.
-
My view is that the students assocs are part of the universities in a real sense. So I don't see why the govt is involved at all: it seems obvious to me that the universities should be completely free in this regard. And if they choose to administer a certain part of their university by calling it the "student's association" they should be free to.
I should point out that student associations would fight to the death to not be part of universities in a real sense.
They might be part of the university in a wider sense, in the same way that a alumni association is, but they're entirely independent organisations and saying that they're part of the university is patently false.
-
The AA seems a much better example than a church, Graeme.
-
more specious arguments, then?
y'know, 'cause being a driver is just like going to a university.
y'know, 'cause ya have ta have a licence, y'know, just like NCEA level 3, eh?
y'kow, 'cause ya have ta sit some tests, just like exams, eh.
and it's not like drivers' money isn't going to be paid to the AA by the gummint for a whole lot of services for everyone, even people who aren't AA members, nah.
y'know, a bit like them "voluntary" student associations getting our hard-earned student loan money through the back door of "university fees"! bloody outrage, i say.so, when da ya reckon my human rights will stop being violated by that Key bloke, who says i have to pay taxes to his "IRD". i dont wanna be associated with those, people! it could lead to socialism, or war, or something.
-
Well Graeme, you've got your wish, the Nat's support the Bill and so here we go again... I can't help but think this is a really boring repeat of Steel's cameo... this issue attracts truly lacklustre parliamentary advocates.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.