Weird Marriages and Sensible Civil Unions

A recent Sunday TVNZ program presented three of the weirdest marriages without any sense of irony or awareness of the current brouhaha over what is or isn’t a marriage.
Firstly we watched as Carol Branch married convicted killer Scot Watson, years before they have any hope of regular contact. Ms Branch, who is already mum to four kids with different dads, saw nothing particularly unusual in this blossoming of this unconsummated affection and you had to admire her blissful view of the years to come.
Next we were treated to Ronald van der Plaat’s appalling "marriage" to his daughter who was forced to face years of indescribable horror, only to have this extended courtesy of his real wife’s wish to extend the pain by funding legal action initiated by her monster husband against her own daughter.
On a less horrific, but just as surprising note we followed that enigmatic old athletics coach and sometime hero Arthur Lydiard as he shared with us his relationship with his wife, a mere fifty years his junior. She seemed quite happy guiding him along behind his Zimmer frame. They seemed happy, and good on them, but fifty years is a hell of a gap. For a relationship separated by fifty years one party has to be a pensioner for the younger one to be above the legal age of consent. In the please take notice stakes, this seems to be right up there with Minister Gough’s brief flirtation with twelve and fourteen year old relationships having some redeeming feature.
Well, the bit I noticed was that unusual that these were, they were all OK by the current legislation and therefore all OK by those opposed to the proposed Civil Union that is supposed to threaten life as we know it.
How do the members of Peter Dunne’s United bunch of oddballs, rally drivers and
fundamental Christians feel about this?
What about our MPs who opposed the Civil Union bill on the basis that it threatened the sanctity of marriage. I’ll bet some researcher is trawling through the list of opposing MPs who quoted this, who have abandoned the sanctity of their wives for the sanctuary of their secretaries. What about live and let live. If Civil Union makes some people happier then what’s wrong with that? They’re not making it compulsory, or at least I hope not.
I’m pleased that both of our leaders of the realistically large parties chose to support this legislation. Helen Clark stuck forthrightly with her views and good on her. Don Brash wisely left his Calvinistic background behind him on this and showed a kinder understanding face that he might still need on some other human issues, which he has painted in black and white (or brown and white).
While we are on the tricky ground of moral issues there have certainly been some brave statements of late. Firstly Archbigot Whakahuiahuia Vercoe dreams of a future without homosexuals, (hopefully before the more likely future without Anglicans given their negative growth curve). Then don’t you just love it when he is joined by the Catholic primate in a diatribe against liberal attitudes in the very same newspaper issue that one of his own former Brothers gets seven years for vileness with young men. That ink is hardly dry before the issue of scriptural support for tithing for handsome charismatic vicars with flash motorbikes is before us for consideration.
It’s not my business what people do at a personal level and I would just rather let each of us battle on privately, but I am glad when the nation as a whole acts with restraint and some form of moral authority. Leaving Iraq to those in a rush was a wise decision, as was supporting The USA in Afghanistan where the approval of the UN made all the difference. Committing defence forces to rebuilding and peacekeeping whether it is in the Pacific or the Middle East is something we should all be proud of.
Those who provide their time abroad to aid in foreign areas of trouble show the real caring spirit that some of our moralists fail to show to our own people when pushing their judgmental barrows back here.