Gay marriage is the latest social issue to be thrust into the political spotlight. For politicians on the right, the issue is reasonably unproblematic as vague positions tend not to be challenged by supporters so much - see Claire Trevett's Key 'not against' gay marriage. But for politicians of the left, the issue is a minefield. This is possibly why we've seen a perceived vacillation on the issue from Labour leader David Shearer - see: Hayden Donnell's Labour leader (almost) supports gay marriage.
It's difficult for politicians of the left because, on the one hand, they personally tend to favour absolute equality, and see nothing wrong with same-sex couples being able to marry. On the other hand, out of pragmatism, they don't want to be seen as holding a principle that might cause offence to voters. Hence, we had a situation during the last Labour Government, where there was complete official opposition to the idea and principle of gay marriage, and the introduction of civil unions was a pragmatic way of bridging the contradiction between principle and pragmatism. For many in the gay community, however, the civil union 'solution' was seen as a cop out and a denial of human rights and equality from a party that claimed to be sympathetic and liberal.
Yesterday American President Barrack Obama clearly came out in favour of gay marriage and it was apparently his declaration that led to David Shearer to tweet that 'I fully support marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving formal support'. But as Hayden Donnell reported, 'he was still blasted by some Twitter users for qualifying his support'.
So why did Shearer qualify his support? Lew Stoddart has written a very interesting blog post on the issue - see: "What a great day for humanity" would probably have done the trick. Stoddart is willing to cut Shearer some slack and suggests that the Labour leader simply stuffed up in his communication style and choice of medium. Twitter is not the place to let your main message be equalled by your qualifications to that message, which meant that 'it looks like fuzzy-headed waffly-thinking at best, or political cowardice at worst'. Stoddart laments that this episode is 'symptomatic of Labour's ongoing failure to articulate its vision', and sometimes 'sometimes being timid is worse than being silent'. Interestingly, in the comment section, Chris Trotter pops up to declare his 'unequivocal' support for gay marriage and to add a further observation: 'with Grant Robertson clearly positioning himself for a tilt at the Labour leadership, I would have thought the political costs of equivocation on this issue would have been even clearer to Shearer'.
So who else is supporting gay marriage? Claire Trevett's article, Key 'not against' gay marriage reports John Key's apparent shift on the matter, and points out that Key pragmatically voted against the Civil Unions Bill in 2004, 'because of demand from his electorate rather than his own views'. The article also provides some details of two opinion polls on the matter which both suggest that New Zealanders are broadly split down the middle on gay marriage. Also in this regard, listen to RNZ Morning Report's item on this issue: Will same-sex marriage be re-visited in NZ?.
Other parties have been making clear their positions. Those in favour of gay marriage include the Green Party and the Maori Party. Those not commenting, or sitting on the fence included Hone Harawira, Peter Dunne, and John Banks. Unsurprisingly, Colin Craig has come out in total opposition - see: Legalising gay marriage 'social engineering' - Craig.
