Only if they are also benefit recipients and fail their drug test three or more times

Unfortunately, as evidenced by one of the Labour politicians who is quite clearly gay and is now using his position as a politician to advance a possible music career, politicians aren’t like that these days. Our very own PM wouldn’t support this Bill if he weren’t taking cues from Barack Obama.

So I’m in support of legislation being introduced that will redefine when there is a need for a Referendum to be held. All controversial social issues (gay marriage, euthanasia, decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis), in my view, should be put to a binding Referendum. Democracy at its very best.

(I personally don’t have a problem with same-sex “marriages”, but understand why my fellow bretheren do.)

No real problem with that here … but I think you’ll find the horse has long ago bolted on the use of the term “marriage”, in that a large majority of NZers see the institution in purely civil terms. So any attempt to “reclaim” it for the churches is, I think, doomed to failure.

But, as I say, I have no principled problem with what you suggest.

In that way, everyone, Christian: Mormon, Catholic, same-sex, atheists, can all go and register their union with the State, and then perform whatever ceremony they want afterwards.

Christians can have Christian marriage ceremonies according to their own beliefs, and atheists can go to the marae according to their own beliefs.

But because the State regulates marriage, it IS/WILL/CAN redefine marriage for ALL citizens, against what some groups may believe in.

But marriage is NOT a Christian institution anymore. I married my wife in a registry office in front of a court official with nary a mention of God, then had a redo on a Marae in front of family and friends with my sister acting as “celebrant”. As we’re both atheists, it would be extremely silly to say we’ve entered a Whatever historical connection marriage once may have had with the Church (a connection that has never been particularly strong in NZ), it has long since been broken. So you don’t get a veto over this issue – sorry.

Further, exactly which “Christians” get to say what marriage is – the Anglicans (who may be about to allow gay unions to take place)? The Catholics (in which case, no gay marriage … but no divorce for anyone either)? The Mormons (no gay marriage … but guys get lots of wives!)?

you agree the Greens were ‘sluggish’ (ie last movers) on GST off veges & fruit, because they believe in the purity & power of the free market.

No. I agree that the GP were rightly skeptical because the proposition is stupid.
Bananas that cost $1/kilo with GST one day will cost $1/kilo without GST the next. It’s got to do with the reality of the free market not “belief in it’s purity”.
The alternative is price controls on goods + services – something that might have it’s own merits under certain conditions but not anything that was proposed.

The GP had actually proposed a sensible alternative in 2010 (a Supermarket code of Conduct) which would have looked at both current duopoly’s gouging at both the supply and consumption ends of the chain.

And while Bradford pushed a minimum wage rise through, with union backing, it spoke volumes of how long that took,…

Firstly, are you saying that the GP calling for minimum wage legislation was prompted only by union agitation?
Secondly, given that it’s been policy for at least 5-6 years, how exactly are the GP (who haven’t been in government lets and don’t have a commanding number of seats ) “taken too long”, particularly given that the party of the unions over their tenure did bugger when they were in Govt?

For whatever reason, I think you’ve set your sights on the wrong target, bob.