Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Husbands and Wives

I received the following press release from my friend Bob McCoskrie:



‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ To Be Removed From Family Laws



Family First NZ says the Select Committee report on the same-sex marriage bill confirms that the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will be removed from 16 pieces of legislation as it seeks to redefines marriage.



I sent this quick e-mail:

This pisses me off. I have always held the terms wife and husband dear. I don't refer to my husband as my partner because  it's too ambiguous.

So what is left after husband and wife, 'marriage partner'? You know that I support same-sex marriage but this is an encroachment on my 'culture'.

What has the response been like to this revelation?

Update: Kiwiblog has a post clarifying the situation. "So no the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not remove the term “husband and wife” from the law books. It doesn’t remove it from the Marriage Act. It doesn’t introduce the term spouse into the law as a replacement – the term is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament. This issue is a red herring."

18 comments:

Johnny said...

Some of us tried to warn of the slippery slope.

You can't pick and choose your political correctness, sorry.

But don't worry. There is no compulsion for us great unwashed to drop our use of the English language we have always used and loved.

They can't legislate morals, and they can't legislate language.

... ...

Or can they?

S. Beast said...

Typical gov't getting carried away and letting the religious argument creep into the legislation. What the hell is wrong with keeping husband + husband and wife + wife?

Andrei said...

Other words under threat are mother and father - already changed on official documents in England to parent 1 and parent 2 and in Spain to progenitor 1 and 2.

There is of course the child with three parents in Florida.

The whole business is looney tunes

Anonymous said...

Who would have thought? My wife will remain my wife and I'll be her husband irrespective of what the gays think. That's one aspect of marriage that they can't change, unles they define a wife or husband as anything you like, which would be a bit silly and it will for me remain a point of distinction. Suck it up. Going about in drag with a supple wrist and lippy does not a woman make.

3:16

Berend de Boer said...

Am I the only one who reads "Government cannot replace families and community." at the top of this blog, then sees the passionate support for getting rid of any connection between kids and a biological mum and dad, and thinks: what are libertarianz smoking?

Allan said...

The whole thing is ridiculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman and always will be. No matter how they try and normalize same sex relationships it is not the norm. I am not against the fact that some people are attracted to the same sex however they will never be married. They will be partners and can introduce each other as their partner. My wife of nearly 40 years will always be my wife and no amount of political correctness will ever change that no matter what the Politicians try and legislate.

Brendan said...

Hi Lindsay

We are now at least 50 years down the track of cultural repudiation. That is to say, removing all reference to social constructs including language, that reflect our historical Judeo / Christian history and values.

Our political classes are way more 'progressive' than the average Kiwi who is pretty much 'asleep at the wheel' when it comes to political attempts at cultural transformation.

This pending law change does more than simply redefine marriage, it redefines the family. Co-opting the language is just one of the means used to reinforce the new group think, and ensure that everyone 'plays nice' in this brave new world we are leaving as an inheritance for our children and grandchildren.

WWallace said...

Civil Unions were "it".

Turns out, that was a lie. They were just another increment in the progression. Now it's gay marriage. Bit by bit, our heritage is being eroded. But only in small bites -- so not enough people get sufficiently upset to stop this process.

Leave our pre-govt social orders alone. (You've already got Civil Unions. Stick with those!)

James said...

The religious right...Confusing,and willfully ignoring the realisation of individual human rights for oppressed minorites with the real liberty repressing actions of left wing political correctness....a totally seperate phenomenom.

Richard said...

Won't somebody please think of the progeny?

Anonymous said...

What difference do the words in a statute make to what you refer to your husband as?

Paranormal said...

This again highlights the theft by government of church intellectual property. Instead of a separation of church and state we have had the state telling us who can marry and who can't and what married people are to be called. Surely it is up to the church to decide that? This is not an issue for government.

James said...

Its not one for the Church either.Marriage long predates the church...its not nor ever was "theirs" to control or pronounce upon...

Blair said...

This really just highlights the stupidity of governments trying to interfere with words and change what they mean.

No, the world won't end if this happens, but I don't have to like it. Why is your opinion of what marriage is more valid than mine? And why do you want the government to endorse your opinion at my expense? It seems so many libertarians, despite loudly claiming that the government should have no control over their lives, don't mind at all if the government tells us a cow is a pig and a carrot is a fruit, and ignores the opinions of those who rightly beg to differ.

Johnny said...

Incidentally, loved the cartoon first time I saw it, and loved it again this morning here on your site, Lindsay.

Try translating the cartoon into gay-speak. Somehow it is remarkably unfunny all of a sudden.

Johnny said...

What's more: if I tried to present the cartoon with gay characters; same joke but it would be labelled "hate speak".

Anonymous said...

no matter what they do they cannot change the following -that all children are better off and have better outcomes when they have a biological father in a committed relationship with their biological mother, eg married, and they aren't dole bludgers. It's not rocket science.

Johnny said...

§
§  S. Beast said ... What the hell is wrong with keeping husband + husband and wife + wife?
§


Where do I start the list of the ways that this is hellova wrong?