Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Zealand

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

Public opinion
A New Zealand Herald poll in 2004 found that 40% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriages and 54% were against. 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. According to a May 2012 One News Colmar Brunton poll, 63% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriage, 31% were against.

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.

According to a May 2012 One News Colmar Brunton poll, 63% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriage, 31% were against. 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:

- 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.

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.

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. The amount of 18-45 year olds that oppose the definition is 53-56%, the — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRaZyKcNz (talk • contribs)


 * 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 . 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) 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 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." . Other work commissioned for Curia by family first includes polls on legalized prostitution and anti-smacking laws ; 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)

SOP 182/183: SOP 187/188
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
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.  Schwede 66  20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Voting record
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).  Schwede 66  10:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.  Schwede  66  19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

correction to commencement date
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
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
"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)