Posts by Emma Hart
-
wasn't that exactly what so folks were saying about Boobquake? That's not serious "political speech"
It was a deliberately frivolous, well thought-out, response to something that, as Lucy said of PH, was so utterly obviously stupid it felt wrong to dignify it with a serious response.
And yes, I think saying "I dislike this so much that I will boycott the businesses who sponsor it" is a perfectly legitimate form of expression in a battle that is not, let's remember, on a level playing field. Ordinary consumers cannot speak back to Paul Henry on the same level that he gets to speak to them. That's one of my problems with pure Free Speech arguments; they tend to assume that everyone has the same power to speak and to be heard.
-
On a different track, there is no place around here to talk rugby. Where I can plug the case for Stephen Donald's return to the ABs, after his superb game against Otago?
We're not allowed to talk about rugby since Canterbury beat Southland in the DisasterBowl.
-
Because nothing comes without a struggle, and we had to pick a fight. And it wasn't simply a matter of appeasement, of aiming for what we thought we could get - "marriage in all but name" (which does indeed make civil unions sound like a crappy token concession). It's also that a number of campaigners wanted nothing to do with marriage.
I'm aware of that, Gio, it's my position, as I've already said, that we should have civil unions anyway. But that we should also have full marriage equality. And that if that happens in Australia first, we should be incredibly embarrassed.
But the existing discrimination in itself still doesn't place civil unions and marriage on an objective continuum of value.
They're not legally equivalent, currently. It's not marriage in all but name. It's the sort of "marriage" where you can't legally adopt. If one form of relationship has more legal rights than the other, and it does, that's a pretty objective measure of value.
-
That is assuming that marriage is the perfect and civil union are the good.
No, it's not, Gio. that's not what Craig is saying. He's saying the 'good' is having the choice. Why do we have to decide one institution is more "meaningful" than the other? Why can't we just make sure that everyone has the same opportunities, the same choices, and then get out of the way, let them make them, and mind our own fucking business?
-
Lovely Caroline spent a long time vexing a phone pollster for not being able to comprehend the civil union thing,
This actually makes me really angry, and I'm betting Caroline and I could do some good rant on it. Half a dozen categories for 'marital status', important to distinguish between single, divorced and widowed, but no 'civil union'? After five years? It's hugely lazy and kind of insulting. Still, it's nice to know someone else is being a bitch about it.
-
And yet many of my friends who have had civil unions do choose to use the term 'wife', even though they can't legally get married. In my social circle, the terms 'wife' is no longer related solely to getting married, but also to the legal contract of the civil union.
Co-incidentally, on another thread today I referred to John Barrowman's civil marriage partner as his husband. Because they do, and also because that's the accepted practice in Britain. But because it's not the accepted practice here, I assume people say 'your husband' because they're lazily assuming a marriage. Oddly now I think about it, if I were civily unified to a woman, I think I'd be a lot more likely to call her my wife than I am my current partner my husband. That's... odd.
-
Yep, that's why I think the next step is to get the government out of the marriage business. Civil unions for all, leave "marriage" to the church.
I support this idea in theory. In practice, I don't see it having a shit's show of actually happening.
-
Don't some people who get civil unioned talk about being CUP'd? Which sounds more like an inappropriate tailor.
And their civil union partner as their 'cuppie'.
Sorry, just had to pop off and have a quick vomit.
'Civilly unified' is good. 'Civil universary' is good. But an equally bearable label for 'person I am in a civil union with' continues to elude me.
Also, perhaps crafty Wellingtonians are the best people to ask: who makes civil union cards? Somebody must, surely.
-
TBH, I prefer it just because when one is being addressed by one's surname, I do not like being called Mrs. So Ms it is.
I dislike being called by my surname. No matter how formal the circumstances I will at least try to get away with introducing myself as "Emma".
(I do have a dear friend who frequently and consistently refers to me by my full name. It's rather endearing, but I wouldn't suggest anyone else try it.)
-
If people actually abandoned marriage in favour of civil unions for the reason that Thomas so succintly espoused, then civil unions would become the superior institution.
You would still have some people who have a choice, and some people who don't. And the difference would be their sexual orientation. Don't get me wrong, I don't think marriage is superior, I'm very happy with my civil union, and I was in favour of having them even if we had full same-sex marriage as well.
But. There are people who are unhappy because they are not legally allowed to marry, and I don't think "oh come on, marriage sucks anyway" is an adequate response to that.