Yo, New Zealand! Eff You!

It would appear that New Zealand has been by before, but they never got the travelogue treatment, so today New Zealand gets a big Eff You welcome. I think they've only been by once before, and they barely got a mention. I feel bad about that, so here goes.

If Australia is Down Under, then New Zealand is Under Down Under. Located about 900 miles east and a little south of Australia, New Zealand consists of two main islands -- North Island and South Island -- as well as numerous smaller islands. A constitutional monarchy and former British possession, New Zealand has a number of characteristics that distinguish it from most other countries:

Because of its remoteness, it was one of the last lands to be settled by humans. During its long isolation, New Zealand developed a distinctive biodiversity of animal, fungal and plant life. The country's varied topography and its sharp mountain peaks, such as theSouthern Alps, owe much to the tectonic uplift of land and volcanic eruptions. New Zealand's capital city is Wellington, while its most populous city is Auckland.
Polynesians settled New Zealand in 1250–1300 CE and developed a distinctive Māori culture. Abel Tasman, a Dutch explorer, was the first European to sight New Zealand in 1642.[10] In 1840, representatives of the British Crown and Māori Chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, making New Zealand a British colony. Today, the majority of New Zealand's population of 4.5 million is of European descent; the indigenous Māori are the largest minority, followed by Asians and Pacific Islanders. Reflecting this, New Zealand's culture is mainly derived from Māori and early British settlers, with recent broadening arising from increased immigration. The official languages are English, Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, with English predominant. The country's economy was historically dominated by the export of wool, but exports of dairy products, meat, and wine, along with tourism, are more significant today.

They got a lot of sheep in New Zealand, and naturally exports from that are a big part of their economy. Tourism also is large, because the nation is really astoundingly beautiful. Also, the filming of the "Lord of the Rings" movies there created a niche tourism market all its own. Plus, stuff like this:

Might be time to move there. Anyway, let's give a big Eff You welcome to New Zealand. Come back soon, and bring your friends.

I guess the shoe really is on the other foot with this one

From New Zealand, we have a story that I find to be simply fucking hilarious. Oddly enough, gay marriage supporters do not:

Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick will get married tomorrow, yet the matrimonial union has horrified gay rights groups.
Heterosexual best mates McIntosh and McCormick, who have known each other since the age of six, are getting married as winners of a competition run by The Edge radio station in New Zealand.

The two best friends won an expenses-paid trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England. The catch is, they have to get married. Same-sex marriage recently became legal in New Zealand. Naturally, the groups that fought for that change in the law are pissed about this development:

Same-sex marriage became legal in New Zealand in August last year, yet gay groups have condemned the marriage of McIntosh and McCormick.
Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne told theOtago Daily Times that the wedding was an “insult” as marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people.
“Something like this trivialises what we fought for,” he said.
The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative, “as something outrageous that you’d never consider”, Ballantyne said.
LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood told the Otago Daily Times that the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

I find it interesting that gay rights groups who fought for  the "right" to get married -- never once realizing that marriage is not a right -- completely failed to understand that they were fighting for the "right" for anyone to marry anyone. They argued successfully that to limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman was discriminatory. Now they don't want to live with their victory. If a marriage of two men is legitimate, why is a marriage of two men who are best friends but have no desire to have sex with each other -- or any other man, for that matter -- an insult? Interesting that they want to say this "trivialises" gay marriage. How hard would they argue that gay marriage does nothing to "trivialise" traditional marriage? Fuck them -- they can't even spell "trivialize."

They llok like nice guys. I don't know why anyone would be uupset at what they're going:

They seem to be into the spirit of the occasion, after all:

These guys are willing to get "married" so they can go to the Rugby World Cup on somebody else's dime. That is probably a more legitimate reason than many other couples -- same sex or otherwise -- can put forward. The reason is not rooted in something as nebulous as "love." It certainly isn't a political statement. These guys want to go to the Rugby World Cup for free, and this is what they have to do to reach that goal. Given that the New Zealand Blacks -- only a matter of time before the politically correct crowd goes after them the way they are going after the Redskins -- are pretty fucking good, I can see why the boys might not consider this too much of a sacrifice for a chance to see their team win it all.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I really don't care who marries who. I care very much that the state is still involved. The original justification for state regulation of marriage was to make people get married in order to give birth to new taxpayers and, because the state made divorce difficult and expensive, to encourage two-parent families to stay together so that those new taxpayers would be supported by their still-married parents until they actually became taxpayers.

Once California fucked up that arrangement by creating no-fault divorce in the 1960s, thus enabling anybody to get divorced easily and relatively cheaply for pretty much any reason, the rationale for state involvement in marriage disappeared. The state no longer has an interest to defend, so why should they care who gets married. The act has been reduced to a simple religiious ceremony, with no need for state involvement. As it is, if you can find clery to marry you, boom, you're married.

If the Packers go to the Super Bowl and I could go to the game if I marry my best friend, I would -- even though we both would be committing bigamy. Fortunately, we now have a winning legal argument that trying to prohibit us from marrying is discriminatory. If marriage can't be limited by gender, why can it be limited by numbers? This is going to get really funky. Believe it.