And Paul...I really don't care whether they support my causes. GONE!! That's a good term for queers. Sorry...My opinion may not agree with anyone, but my care level on this subject is very low. Somewhere around 0 (zero).

PaulS wrote:

...If we don't support the rights of all then we can't expect them to support ours.

now you could argue that sharian law is someones right too..... not plurry RIGHT at all.
it just bugs me as it seems to be a devalueing of union between man and wife.

Well, I didn't think I was going to change any minds but Elvis, Sharia Law is religious law and doesn't pertain to any non-islamic state.

exacly my point. RELIGIOUS LAW
what is a marraige????
a religious ceremoney to join a husband and wife together.
it bugs me as the gay couples here have had the civil union option the same as straight couples for years. that gives the same LEGAL standing as a church/religious wedding (which has the same paperwork as a regestry office wedding) but is done in gods house or wherever you can get a minister/justice of the peace to preform it.
I would have preferred to have Marriage left alone as it has been for centuries as an instatution of a man and wifes bond/contract to be together.
as as for Sharia not being elsewhere in the world... wake up and smell the doggy doo doos. they are saying its thier law and thier RIGHT to practise it where ever they abide.

Elvis, till a certain level I could agree with them. I have no poblem to consider their sharia laws also when I should have to punish them for something. When you're a moslim and you got caught for stealing, you loose a hand. Caught a second time... In my opinion this would also be great for sex offences, but this time the hands don't have to take the punishment...


And maybe one could think a moment about this: there was a time that Someone could arrange everything with only 10 rules, the 10 Commandments. So all the rest is invented afterwards just to trespass 1 or more of these 10 rules and/or give a reason to lawyer's existence.

I love the way this has become a Kiwi issue! Its not as if we're the first country to go this way.....not that I agree with it. But sure as shit it aint gonna be the last!
Sheep I can understand!

Baa for now

Marriage, as a sacrement is a religious act, but marriage as a civil act is not. The civil marriage (usually performed in a courthouse) is not a religious ceremony at all and is not supposed to be accepted as such but the religious ceremony is also recognised as a civil marriage by the government. I can perform either the civil act or a religious sacrement - but the later is only for those of the same faith, just as a Catholic priest cannot perform a Jewish marriage while either can perform a civil marriage.

so we finally come to the crux of the delema
Is this new law to allow a civil marraige or a religious marraige??

I can't address the NZ law but here in the USA and Washington in particular the religions are free to decline the marriage of same gender couples. In the US it is unconstitutional to demand that religions do anything that would be against their practice of their faith. I would assume that the same would apply in NZ but If it is like England where the church is a state organization - it might be different.

The marriage "contract" that is filed with the state is what grants the rights of the union by law. There are times when religious ceremonies are performed but not filed with the state too. These are purly religious ceremonies and are not legally binding.