Marriage equality logo

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, has anyone else got the red-and-pink Marriage Equality logo as their avatar on WP, or profile pic on Facebook?
The one designed by the Human Rights Campaign in the US that's been going viral?

My current one is for marriage equality in NZ, which looks like passing into law in mid-April.

Looking forward to it!

I've seen a couple hear and there. I was amused to hear that the conservative members of the US Supreme Court agreed to take up the case to limit it before popular opinion swept the issue away from them. I see it as a necessary extension of the Civil Rights Act of the sixties, and arguments against it equally invalid.

Speaking of the marriage equality cases before SCOTUS ...



Not that I think that trying to get ahead of public opinion will do them any good. People are realising that there's no real problem with gay couples marrying. The conservative justices can only really delay the inevitable ... at least that's how it seems to me.

It seems like many Republican politicians are tripping over themselves to reverse their prior stances. Nothing scarier than seeing the party influence dwindle, I guess.

Shame the HRC is openly anti-trans.

Anti-trans? Really? When did this happen?

During one of their rallys they told people to take down their trans flags. Members of the organization have also stated that "marriage equality is not a trans issue".

This is why my avatar will not feature the "Marriage Equality" symbol - marriage equality should include everybody past the age of consent, and not just the snobby, elitist leaders of the "LGB & No T" movement.

It's a pretty common thing in the US. I have a ton of friends on Facebook who have changed their profile pic to the marriage equality sign. But as I knew essentially next-to-nothing about the HRC I didn't feel comfortable changing my profile pic to the logo of an organization about which I was ignorant. I'd heard a couple of vague things about them holding some questionable views, and assuming that these comments about them being anti-trans aren't misinformed, it would appear that I was justified in being cautious. Not that I'm insinuating that the majority of those who are adopting the logo as their avatar are intolerant, I just personally don't want to in any way appear to give my tacit support to all of the practices of an organization toward whom I'm now learning I have some very significant moral objections.

That's the trouble with "Progressives" - they want things to change for the better, but only for themselves.

Considering more that 50% (and that number is growing) is against it according to recent polls, and that the current bill is legally flawed, discriminating against marriage celebrants who are not associated with church or religion, I do not think it will pass. And as it is currently, I hope it does not pass, as it will cause huge amounts of uproar.

You are, of course, free to disagree with my opinion, and I respect you for doing so if you wish.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I do like meeting other NZers on this site.

But I will point out that in all recent polls in NZ, supporters of marriage equality outnumber opponents (although support does appear to be dropping). Wikipedia has a summary of the independent polls conducted in the last two years (in table form, near the end):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

To some extent, I agree that they could have worded the protections for objecting celebrants a little better. Not that the current protections (in section 29 of the Marriage Act) are anything less than total, IMO.

I respect your right to disagree with the marriage equality bill. I find it fascinating that you do, being so young. I'd be keen on hearing the reasons for your objections, and why you think the bill is legally flawed.

Kia ora.

Last edited by Murihiku on 31 Mar 2013, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

On their website, the HRC in the US mentions that they do work with and promote transgender issues. Then again, I read an interesting Huffington Post article describing "bad blood" between the HRC and transgender groups. Being outside the US, it's hard for me to tell what's really going on. I was surprised to hear about all of this. To state the obvious, the HRC should be doing their best to advocate transgender awareness and issues.

But awareness of transgender issues is lagging behind in many developed countries. NZ's Human Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation, but there's no mention of gender identity (although the current marriage equality bill mentions all three). For me, marriage equality isn't the most important LGBTQI issue out there, but it's good progress nonetheless. Still plenty more work to do.

I haven't changed my fb profile pic in the 5 years since I created the account, so, no, I haven't changed it to the HRC = image.

The most ironic part about the anti-gay marriage crowd is that they want "traditional," marriages. Guess what? So do homos. Literally. Marriage is not an invention of the church, or any religion afaik. Marriage was adopted by the church & various religions, given ceremonies and traditions etc in order to get people further involved in the church, grow their religion/business etc. Marriage was created as a matter of legal arrangements required it, and necessity breeds invention. It was created to solve the problem of women not being able to inherit the legal property rights to the family farm upon the passing of the man of the household should he die in battle or from illness or whatever. Once the concept of marriage was formed, if s**t happened, there was a legal framework in place to convey property rights & other assets and so forth. How ironic that what gays are fighting for in terms of marriage equality is, truly, a traditional marriage vs. the modified versions of marriage with religious ceremony & traditions of bigotry that anti-gay marriage folks consider traditional marriage.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10877294

Now they're thinking of removing "Bride" and "Groom" from legal papers

This would mean than any straight couple than marry would no longer be legally identified as a Bride and Groom. A mother can no longer be a Mother of the bride, and father, Father of the bride under law. This is taking away legal rights of straight people and is just one of the many reasons why this current bill should not pass, that and the government shouldn't even have any say in these types of matters, it should be left for the public to decide.

If they could let the public decide and fix all these issues, I would consider being more open to this bill. But as the bill currently stands, it can not be in any way identified as Marriage "Equality" as it does not provide equal rights and actually takes away from others previous legalities that they currently have.

Never mind that the media has been extremely biased and has not given both sides of the issue a fair argument, this is really is not equality in any way possible.

I'm not sure what they're proposing in the US, but I'd hope it's better than what's being proposed in NZ.

That's not what is being proposed, which is that if same-sex marriage is legalised, a same-sex married couple will be correctly identified in gender-neutral terms on legal documents related to their marriage.
The parents remain free to call them, mixed- or same-sex couples, whatever they want.

Oh - is it actually a "legal right" in NZ for a "straight" couple to be referred to as "bride" and "bridegroom"?
It's just a convention with no legal basis carried over onto paperwork, surely?

What the bill does is provide a balance of equality, where neither mixed-sex nor same-sex marriages are gender-identified - or would you rather see "bride" and "bridegroom", or "husband" and "wife" forced on a same-sex couple?
You expect one half to play the part of "husband" and the other to play the part of "wife" - gender-identified male and female roles imposed onto two men or two women?
It doesn't appear that you've put much thought into this...