Talk:Same-sex marriage in New Zealand

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transexuals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overseas marriages and registered partnerships 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overseas marriages and registered partnerships 2 

message: 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.Views on whether same-sex couples should be able to marryPoll shows majority backs same-sex marriageNZ poll shows same-sex marriage support
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.Views on whether same-sex couples should be able to marry
According to a May 2012 One News Colmar Brunton poll, 63% of New Zealanders supported same-sex marriage, 31% were against. Views on whether same-sex couples should be able to marryPoll shows majority backs same-sex marriageNZ poll shows same-sex marriage support
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. http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Definition-of-Marriage-Mar-2011-FULL-REPORT.pdf
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. http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/archives/tag/poll
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 http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Definition-of-Marriage-Mar-2011-FULL-REPORT.pdf]. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Definition-of-Marriage-Mar-2011-FULL-REPORT.pdf]. 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) http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/4321_RR300_s14338.pdf
	 
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 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ 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." http://curia.co.nz/. Other work commissioned for Curia by family first includes polls on legalized prostitution http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1202/S00110/prostitution-law-harming-homes-and-retailers.html and anti-smacking laws http://familyfirst.org.nz/research/anti-smacking-polls/; 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Public opinion

message: 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)
thread_title: SOP 182/183: SOP 187/188

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see.  The article about the act is a good piece of work. Schwede66 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting record 

message: 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)
thread_title:  correction to commencement date 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Election results 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dependencies