Gay Marriage

Sam and Frodo Can Finally Get Married

New Zealand approves same-sex marriage recognition


If God didn't intend for dudes to marry each other, he wouldn't have invented hobbits.
Credit: New Line Cinema

New Zealand's parliament voted last night to recognize same-sex marriages, making it the 13th nation to do so. It passed by a vote of 77-44, but still needs to be signed by Aragorn the governor-general.

CNN reports:

The bill's sponsor, Louisa Wall, released a statement saying she was "very proud to be a member of a Parliament that has voted overwhelmingly to give New Zealanders, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender, the right to marry."

New Zealand's move comes a week after Uruguayan lawmakers approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure awaits the signature of Uruguay's president, who has indicated he supports it.

They also sang an old dwarven traditional love song called "Pokerekare Ana" after the bill's passage. As noted, Uruguay is at the same step, waiting for final approval of its same-sex marriage recognition bill.

France is nearly as close, and a major vote will take place next week, but tensions are much higher in the country. Nothing gets done in France without huge street protests, though, so it's hard to determine what impact opposition to gay marriage there will actually have.

Next on the list is actually Colombia, which has a senate vote today on whether to recognize same-sex marriages.

America's not the only place where attitudes are quickly changing on recognizing same-sex marriage.

NEXT: Mubarak's Retrial to Begin Next Month

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All that hobbit love seriously ruined those movies for me.

    1. Brokeback Mount Doom

    2. But it made for great fodder for The Very Secret Diaries

    3. It was a bit much but I wouldn’t say it ruined the movies.

  2. Any countries close to eliminating government licensing of marriage?

    1. Not even Somalia as far as I know.

      Why do these articles keep saying “legalized” when they should say licensed?

      If they want to be really honest, they could mention all of the government handouts, which are the real reason a tiny, but loud, fraction of the population wants their relationships licensed.

      1. Why do these articles keep saying “legalized” when they should say licensed?

        What’s the difference? Tax & Regulate, Baby!

      2. I know, right, like 5th amendment spousal privilege, and the ability to sponsor a spouse for citizenship. THOSE BASTARDS!

        1. So you think there was no spousal privilege under common law marriage, or do you think governments give us marriages? (Or are you just kidding around?)

          1. I think under our current legal system, it’s pretty understandable that gays would be petitioning for the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. I was mostly responding to:

            they could mention all of the government handouts, which are the real reason a tiny, but loud, fraction of the population wants their relationships licensed.

            which is pretty dismissive of spousal privilege and immigration. I agree with gB’s prescriptions below, but I don’t see them happening anytime soon. I can’t see the government deigning to not threaten people with imprisonment if they refuse to testify, and though I would love to have a relatively open immigration system, most of the conservatives I’ve talked to about it balk at the security threat and all those damn mexicans flooding in and the liberals are terrified it would drive down labor costs, so I don’t see it happening.

            1. So you are all for the handouts, yet your own family cannot manage to voice to you that you are an authoritarian statist.

              1. You aren’t doing a very good job of getting a rise out of me AA. You’re ignoring my core point and taking pot shots at the edges, which means you’re arguing for a position of rhetorical weakness. Everyone already agrees that we’re against state marriage licenses. Where we disagree is that you presume that straight couples should enjoy spousal privilege while we wait for the dismantling the state but allowing gay couples equal access to those legal protections and responsibilities will be just awful.

                You haven’t shown how you are a) going to undo the state’s interference in marriage law, or b) convinced me that it is more libertarian accept (in the indefinite interim) that straight couples should be protected from coercion to testify by the state in a court of law, but gay couples should not be.

                1. AA, circa 1898 (Plessy v. Ferguson):
                  “They need to ban public schools instead of expanding government to pay for the public education of blacks, and until they ban public schools, they should keep the existing discriminatory laws in place.”

          2. So you think there was no spousal privilege under common law marriage

            Sure there was. Common law marriages were recognized by government courts. As long as we aren’t living in the mythical anarchotopia, we need government to recognize marriages, and it needs to recognize them equally. The whole idea of getting government out of marriages sounds nice on the surface, but breaks down once you start thinking about it.

            1. Just as Generic Brand observed, the marriage is not the key to the problems you mention. I will add, you are all about the privilege and not about any rights at all.

              1. I will add, you are all about the privilege and not about any rights at all.

                I’m confused by this statement. 5th amendment spousal privilege is a concession that the 5th amendment is meaningless if someone who knows your business as intimately as your spouse may can be coerced to testify against you.

                I would argue that it is a right under the 5th amendment as it has been construed by the courts to not have ones spouse be coerced to testify against one, the word privilege not withstanding. This right is not given to contractual relationships (with very specific professional considerations such as attorney client privilege), or even to child/parent relationships.

                I’m very much in favor of gB’s proposal, but I don’t see that happening in the near future, so I see gay couples being protected from coercion by the courts in the meantime as a good thing.

            2. Well, that last comment was supposed to go elsewhere.

              Brandybuck, yes they were recognized by government courts and the courts were not doing a bad job before the legislatures jumped in.

              Out west the plural marriages were not outlawed by the locals, the feds came in and forced that issue.

              You want government to “recognize them equally?” Then nobody should be treated any differently because of marriage status. Remove the word “married” from the federal register does that on the federal level.

              Now for your precious marriage licenses, might want to figure out what they do before you demand more of them. The “presumption of paternity” is a biggie that courts don’t have a problem finding paternity without a license, but the mere existence of a license makes a mess of things. Ask Michael Jordan’s baby mama.

              No, the whole idea of keeping government in marriages is the insanity.

              1. “No, the whole idea of keeping government in marriages is the insanity.”

                Somehow you continue to ignore that we all agree the government should ideally not be handing out marriage licenses at all.

                The problem with your argument is, if you oppose a ballot initiative to legalize SSM or polygamy because you hate the concept of state marriage, either outcome does not end state marriage. Your perfect solution will still be compromised either outcome. If you vote no or choose not to vote, you are effectively stating that you’d prefer to continue to deny equal protections instead of removing government’s ability to arbitrarily discriminate.

        2. Open immigration and eliminating the spousal privilege (or being unable to force anyone to testify against another person) would eliminate those problems.

          1. I was waiting for Jesse’s jackbooted statist justification for rights licensing. You spoiled the fun.

            1. Oooh, nobody has ever called me a jackbooted statist before. You should tell my family, they’d be so happy to know that I don’t pass your purity test; they think I’m just a smidge away from calling for an anarchic revolution.

            2. Austrian Anarchy,

              “The Perfect Solution Fallacy” for your viewing pleasure.

  3. To be fair, Sam did end up marrying the cutest Hobbit in the films.

    1. Rosie was a babe!

    2. Wasn’t she the only female hobbit in the films?

      1. No, it’s just that the others were so similar in appearance to the men, that they’re often mistaken for men. Which has led to the mistaken belief that there are no Hobbit women… Oh wait, that’s dwarves, nevermind.

      2. There was that hobbit old-lady who gives gandalf the stinkeye on his way into town.

        1. That was a woman? I seriously thought that was man. Maybe my comment above really does apply to Hobbits afterall.

          1. Are you referring to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins?

            God, I shouldn’t have admitted that I knew that.

      3. There was that babe that gave Pippin the eye. But Pippin was already merry with Merry, so she had to settle for the Fatty Bolger for her rumpy pumpy.

        1. You would know that.

  4. There are going to be some FABULOUS weddings in Matamata.

  5. Sam and Frodo are totally NOT Kiwis!

    …not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  6. That’s “Pokarekare Ana”.

    Yeah, I actually have that on a CD. My brother lived in NZ for several years.

    1. I stared at that song title for five damn minutes and still managed to spell it wrong. Fixed. I think.

  7. You know who else orchestrated a gigantic upheaval of the social order with a magic ring?

    1. The ghays?

    2. Douglas C. Niedermeyer?

    3. The Nibelung?

      1. Actually just one Nibelung the dwarf Alberich.

  8. “If Peter Jackson really wanted to blow me away with those “Rings” movies, he would have ended the third one on the logical closure point, not the 25 endings that followed… When Sam leans around the corner and gives Frodo that very gay look.

    That look was so gay. I thought Sam was gonna tell the little hobbits to take a walk so he could saunter over to Frodo and suck his fucking cock. Now *that* would have been an Academy Award worthy ending… And then, right after the Sam/Frodo suckfest, right before the credits roll, Sam fucking flat out bricks in Frodo’s mouth.”


  9. But they were all deceived.

    Three Rings for the Gay-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Lesbians Lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Heterosexual doomed to die,
    One for the Government on his dark throne
    In the Land of New Zealand where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of New Zealand where the Shadows lie.

  10. Hobbits with a foot fetish.

  11. “Any countries close to eliminating government licensing of marriage?”

    Exactly. Isn’t it something that Reason chooses to take the position of “CATO baby steps” on cocktail pet-peeve issues…..but when it is about stuff like Right to Work, then Reason runs articles about how no true libertarian can support it.

    1. Right to work. That’s when the government comes in and tells a business who it can or cannot hire? Yeah, that’s libertarian all right…

      1. Gay marriage just gives the government more power and authority.

        You see, both aren’t perfect. Hence “CATO liberty-friendly baby steps” dumbass

        1. “Gay marriage just gives the government more power and authority.”

          This is the part that has me scratching my head. They already have whatever authority over marriage they have already assigned themselves. Proponents for SSM and polygamy want to remove the state’s ability to discriminate on arbitrary grounds. That’s a reduction of government power and authority.

  12. I’ve always thought that New Zealand and Australia were the last countries that resemble America’s economy/freedom and culture.

    1. Australia? The land of gun bans and internet censorship?

      1. True. The place is a mess since Gillard came to power. Still, though, the chicks there dig southern accents.

  13. “regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender”

    You call *that* “legalese”, Ms. Wall — with no mention that consideration of genitalia is explicitly prohibited?

  14. Uruguay

    “Heh, heh…’U-R-gay.'”

  15. Still no scouring of the Shire.

  16. I am appalled that this thread hasn’t degenrated into an in depth discussion of anal.

    1. Don’t think we didn’t see that.

  17. Yay.

  18. This article is gay.

  19. Sam was Frodo’s *batman,* which isn’t a gay thing.

  20. Ooh, check out this Slate article:

    “Legalize Polygamy!
    No. I am not kidding.

    “By Jillian Keenan

    “…While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families….

    “It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve….

    “The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve….

    “…All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process….

    “The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults….”…..r_all.html

    1. Here we go with that “legalize” crap again. If the government were out of the marriage business, this would not be an issue.

      1. It’s beyond legalization. The author wants poly marriage to be on the same legal plane as other kinds of marriage.

        1. As it should be.

      2. Legalize – to make legal; especially: to give legal validity or sanction to.
        (Source: Merriam-Webster’s.)

        I agree “if” government were out of the marriage business, this would not be an issue. However, the government is not out of the marriage business, and the legal question up for debate is “as long as the government IS in the marriage business, should the government should provide all consenting adults with the same licenses as straight monogamist couples?”

        You may claim this is a false dichotomy to say that we can’t debate the premises of the debate topic, but you’re answering a completely different question: “should the government be involved in marriage?” is not the question the courts and ballot initiatives and legislation are asking. Jesse, myself and many of the other people here would answer “no” to that question if there were a case or law to support that option with.

        That’s why it’s a “perfect solution fallacy.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.