Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Transexuals[edit]

I have read and re-read the last sentence of this paragraph. Can it please be re-written in simpler english? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.137.106 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Overseas marriages and registered partnerships[edit]

The article currently incorrectly states that "couples that have same-sex marriages from countries that allow them can have their ]marriages recognised as civil unions [in New Zealand]". This is actually false. Couples who have been in such a relationship are definitely recognised as being in a de facto partnership, but are not automatically recognised as being in a "civil union" in New Zealand. My husband and I had a looooong argument with the DIA on this when we arrived in the country and wanted our Canadian marriage to be recognised as an NZCU and finally gave up becasue, frankly, they were just too stupid to deal with. Going to correct the article and provide references now. 82.124.32.180 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Overseas marriages and registered partnerships 2[edit]

As opposed to the above assertion, looking at the Marriage Act itself it does seem to explicitly allow for recognition of overseas same sex marriages if they are legal in the country they are conducted in. Part 7, section 40, clause 2 "Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any marriage solemnised out of New Zealand in accordance with the law of the country where the marriage was solemnised." here.Number36 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of referenced information[edit]

I have posted the follow twice, I stand by its accuracy please critique and allow for modification


Public opinion[edit]

A New Zealand Herald poll in 2004 found that 40% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriages and 54% were against.[1] A Research New Zealand poll in 2011 found that 60% were in favour, and 34% against, with support at 79% among 18 - 34 year olds.[2] According to a May 2012 One News Colmar Brunton poll, 63% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriage, 31% were against.[3][4][5]


Both polls the 2004 and the 2008 used the same survey question of: "In New Zealand same-sex couples can enter into a Civil Union, but they are not able to get married. Do you think same-sex couples should be able to get married?". The question repetition and method duplication makes the poll suitable for showing actual opinion change.[6]


According to a May 2012 One News Colmar Brunton poll, 63% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriage, 31% were against. [7][8][9] This survey also asked if the respondents identified with a spiritual/religious group. Based the 2012 Colmar Brunton poll responses the following can be calculated: [10]

- 14.57% of the population are religious people who oppose gay marriage, while 43.55% of the total population identifies as being religious. This means 33.46% of religious people oppose same-sex marriage

- 6.51% of the population are non-religious people who oppose gay marriage, while 53.76% of the total population identifies as being non-religious. This means 12.11% of non-religious people oppose same-sex marriage.

- These results indicate a link between identifying with a religious/spiritual group and opposing same sex marriage. Differences in total responses from 100% exist due to some respondents answering 'not sure' or 'prefer not to say'.


Vastly different results have been found by the Curia poll conducted in New Zealand 2011 on behalf of the Christian based organisation Family First which asked "The law currently defines marriage as being only allowable between a man and a woman? Do you support this?" The poll found: 52% of New Zealanders approve of the definition, 42% disapprove, and 6% were unsure. [11]

The Curia poll has been widely used by advocates of the movement opposing same sex marriage to suggest the government is acting against constituent support. This includes leading opposition website protectmarriage.org.nz. [12]


The following criticisms of Curias methodology have been accused of producing skewed results:

- 78% of the respondents surveyed were over 46. Only 22% were under 45 [13]. The amount of 18-45 year olds that oppose the definition is 53-56%, the— Preceding unsigned comment added by CRaZyKcNz (talkcontribs)

I strongly oppose these edits. There is no reason to include so many details in the article. Everyone can read the sources. The ""Public opinion"" section is not central point of the article and should not be too big. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


It is politics. Public opinion and facts are almost exclusively what matters. The information I am posting has been extensively used by media/journalists and political organisations in their debate.

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Short information about polls is absolutely enough. I don't see a good reason to expand it. Further details are in sources, which could be read by users. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Enough to what? My thought was Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the goal being to give full access to verifiable information. First, the curia poll was left out completely on the page. Secondly that curia poll is one of the most extensively referenced sources in ongoing the political debates. Thirdly the link between the polls as showing society change not just poll results is notable. Fourthly the link between political view and religious affiliation is explanatory. and Finally the weaknesses in the Curia poll results are notable and relevant to the debate. I am not sold on wording. You could perhaps re-write it more concisely?

CRaZyKcNz (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove the Curia poll from the article despite that the poll is probably biased.

Citation: """The following criticisms of Curia Market Researchs methodology have been accused of producing skewed results:

− 78% of the respondents surveyed were over 46. Only 22% were under 45 [14]. The amount of 18-45 year olds that oppose the definition is 53-56%, the amount of 45-61+ year olds that oppose the definition is only 31-47%. Similarly those supporting the definition in 18-45 year olds is 34-43% while 45-61+ rises to 46-62%.

− Respondents in rural locations were over surveyed (with generally more religious and more traditional populations). 31% of respondents were in rural areas but only 8.4% of New Zealands live in rural areas (see source table 1) [15]

Curia has also been identified as having a biased relationship with the family first organisation including Curia principal, David Farrar voicing personal opinions of support on his blog [16] and has widely been criticized as producing results 'as requested' for clients. A quote from Curia Market Researches website states "Curia believes polling is an art, as well as a science. The most essential aspect to any poll is taking the time to understand the key drivers for clients, and ensuring the questions asked will be of maximum value." [17]. Other work commissioned for Curia by family first includes polls on legalized prostitution [18] and anti-smacking laws [19]; both of which produced results inconsistent with other market research companies like Colmar Brunton."""

Is methodology criticized? By who? Who say that the curia's relationship with family first organisation is biased? No sources about that. Or maybe it is your personal opinion? Ron 1987 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your Reply Ron

I agree the poll is biased. But that makes it more relevant. A largely sourced poll with obvious errors. When you look up the Earth wiki it doesn't just say 'the earth is round' it says 'the earth was thought to be flat, for these reasons, and this is why its not'. Because although it is wrong it is relevant to the current understanding of the issue. If you would like to see the frequency of the polls sourcing google it and you will see it is common

>Is methodology criticized?

You just stated and accepted the reasoning in giving your explanation for not posting the poll

>By who? Who say that the curia's relationship with family first organisation is biased? No sources about that.

If the problem was wanting more sources you just had to say:

Here is the protect marriage.org.nz website with over 26,759 signatures claiming the poll: http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/archives/debate-needed-to-understand-purpose-of-marriage

Here is the political party 'the greens' criticizing curia: http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/another-attack-keeping-our-children-safe-violence

Cheers CRaZyKcNz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at all. This article is not about Curia Market Research. Obvious errors should be pointed by the some source. In current form it's original research. The poll itself can't be used as a source in this case. Obviously, we don't have consensus on this. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The FF poll result was sourced only to FF's own web site. I have removed it because it is self-published. If anyone wishes to re-add these results, please find a reliable source for them first. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

References

SOP 182/183: SOP 187/188[edit]

Would it possible for someone to visit the New Zealand Parliament website and publish the related voting patterns and party turnouts for the various Supplementary Order Papers related to this bill? It's rather odd that the first and second readings are cited here, and the results of the SOP 182 vote are only referred to within the text, rather than tabulated. Calibanu (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)User Calibanu

Concert[edit]

That information is not important. Including this in the article (especially in the lead) is ridiculous idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the "Public campaigns" sub-section. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - that is indeed a better spot for this info. Schwede66 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Voting record[edit]

There's a nifty table showing how our MPs voted in the third reading. For what it's worth, here's the voting record for all three readings; it would be nice if somebody could adjust the formatting and show the data in the same table format as we've already got it. Source is this website (which in turn links to a table that is a bit hard to manipulate). Schwede66 10:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Electorate Name Party First vote Second vote Third vote
List Carol Beaumont Labour Party For - New MP For - New MP
List Brendan Horan Independent Against Against Against
Mangere Su'a William Sio Labour Party Against Against Against
Manukau East Ross Robertson Labour Party Against Against Against
Te Tai Tonga Rino Tirikatene Labour Party For For Against
West Coast-Tasman Damien O'Connor Labour Party Against Against Against
Bay of Plenty Tony Ryall National Party Against Against Against
Clutha-Southland Bill English National Party Against Against Against
East Coast Anne Tolley National Party Against Against Against
East Coast Bays Murray McCully National Party For Against Against
Hamilton West Tim Macindoe National Party Against Against Against
Ilam Gerry Brownlee National Party For Against Against
Invercargill Eric Roy National Party Against Against Against
Kaikoura Colin King National Party Against Against Against
List Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi National Party Against Against Against
List Christopher Finlayson National Party Against Against Against
List Melissa Lee National Party Against Against Against
List Alfred Ngaro National Party Against Against Against
List Katrina Shanks National Party Against Against Against
List Michael Woodhouse National Party Against Against Against
List Jian Yang National Party Against Against Against
Maungakiekie Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga National Party Against Against Against
Nelson Nick Smith National Party Against Against Against
New Plymouth Jonathan Young National Party Against Against Against
Northcote Jonathan Coleman National Party For Against Against
Northland Mike Sabin National Party Against Against Against
Otaki Nathan Guy National Party Against Against Against
Rangitikei Ian McKelvie National Party For Against Against
Rodney Mark Mitchell National Party Against Against Against
Rotorua Todd McClay National Party Against Against Against
Tamaki Simon O'Connor National Party Against Against Against
Taranaki-King Country Shane Ardern National Party Against Against Against
Taupo Louise Upston National Party Against Against Against
Tauranga Simon Bridges National Party Against Against Against
Waikato Lindsay Tisch National Party Against Against Against
Wairarapa John Hayes National Party Against Against Against
Whanganui Chester Borrows National Party Against Against Against
Whangarei Phil Heatley National Party Against Against Against
List Asenati Lole-Taylor NZ First Against Against Against
List Tracey Martin NZ First Against Against Against
List Denis O'Rourke NZ First Against Against Against
List Winston Peters NZ First Against Against Against
List Richard Prosser NZ First Against Against Against
List Barbara Stewart NZ First Against Against Against
List Andrew Williams NZ First Against Against Against
Epsom John Banks ACT New Zealand For For For
List Steffan Browning Green Party For For For
List David Clendon Green Party For For For
List Catherine Delahunty Green Party For For For
List Julie Anne Genter Green Party For For For
List Kennedy Graham Green Party For For For
List Kevin Hague Green Party For For For
List Gareth Hughes Green Party For For For
List Jan Logie Green Party For For For
List Mojo Mathers Green Party For For For
List Russel Norman Green Party For For For
List Denise Roche Green Party For For For
List Eugenie Sage Green Party For For For
List Metiria Turei Green Party For For For
List Holly Walker Green Party For For For
Christchurch East Lianne Dalziel Labour Party For For For
Dunedin North David Clark Labour Party For For For
Dunedin South Clare Curran Labour Party For For For
Hauraki-Waikato Nanaia Mahuta Labour Party For For For
Hutt South Trevor Mallard Labour Party For For For
Ikaroa-Rawhiti Parekura Horomia Labour Party For For For
List Jacinda Ardern Labour Party For For For
List Clayton Cosgrove Labour Party For For For
List Darien Fenton Labour Party For For For
List Raymond Huo Labour Party Did not vote first reading For For
List Shane Jones Labour Party For For For
List Andrew Little Labour Party For For For
List Moana Mackey Labour Party For For For
List Sue Moroney Labour Party For For For
List David Parker Labour Party For For For
List Rajen Prasad Labour Party For For For
List Maryan Street Labour Party For For For
Mana Kris Faafoi Labour Party For For For
Manurewa Louisa Wall Labour Party For For For
Mt Albert David Shearer Labour Party For For For
Mt Roskill Phil Goff Labour Party For For For
New Lynn David Cunliffe Labour Party For For For
Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway Labour Party For For For
Port Hills Ruth Dyson Labour Party For For For
Rimutaka Chris Hipkins Labour Party For For For
Rongotai Annette King Labour Party For For For
Te Atatu Phil Twyford Labour Party For For For
Wellington Central Grant Robertson Labour Party For For For
Wigram Megan Woods Labour Party For For For
Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira Mana For For For
Tamaki Makaurau Pita Sharples Maori Party For For For
Te Tai Hauauru Tariana Turia Maori Party For For For
Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell Maori Party For For For
Auckland Central Nikki Kaye National Party For For For
Botany Jami-Lee Ross National Party For For For
Christchurch Central Nicky Wagner National Party For For For
Coromandel Scott Simpson National Party For For For
Hamilton East David Bennett National Party Against Against For
Helensville John Key National Party For For For
Hunua Paul Hutchison National Party For For For
List Chris Auchinvole National Party For For For
List Jackie Blue National Party For For For
List Cam Calder National Party For For For
List David Carter National Party For For For
List Aaron Gilmore National Party For For For
List Paul Goldsmith National Party For For For
List Tim Groser National Party For For For
List Tau Henare National Party For For For
List Steven Joyce National Party For For For
List Hekia Parata National Party For For For
Napier Chris Tremain National Party For For For
North Shore Maggie Barry National Party For For For
Pakuranga Maurice Williamson National Party For For For
Papakura Judith Collins National Party For For For
Rangitata Jo Goodhew National Party For For For
Selwyn Amy Adams National Party For For For
Tukituki Craig Foss National Party For For For
Waimakariri Kate Wilkinson National Party For For For
Waitakere Paula Bennett National Party For For For
Waitaki Jacqui Dean National Party For For For
Ohariu Peter Dunne United Future For For For
The voting records for all three readings are included in Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013. It's not necessary here. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I see. The article about the act is a good piece of work. Schwede66 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

correction to commencement date[edit]

Can an editor pls make a correction: "will take effect on 19 August 2013" is not 100% accurate

Would be better to say "will take effect no later than 19 August 2013"

The commencement clause of the Act allows it to be brought into force earlier: "2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the earlier of— (a)a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council; and (b)the day that is 4 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent." http://legislation.co.nz/act/public/2013/0020/latest/DLM4505007.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_marriage_resel_25_a&p=1


thanks Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.81.186 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Election results[edit]

OK, we have an issue here with a roving IP which is removing relevant background information, claiming that it isn't relevant.

I suggest in this case - Party X claims that Action Y will cause consequences for Party Z at the polls - that it is relevant to note that, at the next poll, Party X failed to secure any Parliamentary representation, and Party Z received the greatest amount of electoral support of any party in the last two decades.

Thoughts? Daveosaurus (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The principle that correlation does not mean causation is key here. There were many reasons that the Conservative Party did not gain enough votes to secure parliamentary representation in the 2014 national elections. The prognostications of the party leader following the passing of the Bill that amended the Marriage Act are tenuous enough in this article. Adding the information that they didn't make it to parliament is WP:UNDUE. I support the continued omission of this information. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dependencies[edit]

"The three other territories making up the Realm of New Zealand—the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau—do not perform or recognise same-sex marriage." Okay, that's clear, but the article offers no details. I can hardly imagine that the issue has not been discussed on these islands. Does any of these three territories plan to legalise SSM? Who is in favour, who is against? Are these islanders perhaps more religious of more conservative than mainland New Zealanders, and is that the reason they oppose it? Steinbach (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The article could mention that male homosexuality is illegal altogether in the Cook Islands, and that same-sex marriage was explicitly outlawed in 2000. See LGBT rights in the Cook Islands. Largoplazo (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)