Fenella Bovett <Fenella.Bovett@parliament.govt.nz>
Secretary
Government Administration Committee
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON 6011
{ackn requested}
Submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage)
Amendment Bill
Name of Individual: L. R. B. Mann
The Bill is Language-Tampering
The many reasons why the bill should be withdrawn include one
which has been too little noticed (so far): Parliament should not
utter nonsense or deceit. The concept 'same-sex "marriage" '
literally makes no sense, i.e is incapable of even being right or
wrong. The term 'same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron. The bill's
attempt at re-defining marriage is therefore outside the
legislature's valid role. It is no proper business of Parliament to
mouth words that have no valid meaning.
This crippling fault of the bill is not to be confused with
the various moral points which the committee will hear about. Before
we can discuss morals we do need to be clear about the main terms
used.
My point is 'just' a matter of what a dictionary is, and the
requisite role of agreed terms in legislation (and in administration
more widely).
The categories of union
Human intimate bonds of different kinds are denoted by their names,
e.g .
* homosexual civil union,
as distinct from
* marriage (the term means one man, one woman, for life at least in
sustained attempt),
* polygamy as in early Mormons,
* etc.
To change the definition of any of these categories is to
attempt language-tampering of a bad kind whch could cause severe
social harm.
To illustrate such possibllities, here is my persuasion {1997} of
Brian Edwards about the propaganda term 'homophobia'
------
Realising that you are trained in psychology, I point out
that the phobias are a significant category of illness, characterised
by debilitating irrational fearfulness. If there exists a particular
version of this psychopathology with homosexuals as its fixation, I
have yet to learn of it, but in any case the term "homophobia" should
be reserved for that condition (be it hypothetical or real).
Warren Lindberg, Kevin Hague, and their whole set of
homosexual activists wallowing in the pseudo-victim role, instead use
"homophobia" with not only the meaning which you stated - prejudice
against homosexuals - but mainly a further, completely illegitimate
meaning: they misuse this term "homophobia" to smear, ad hominem, any
misgivings about homosexuality as a political cause.
To get down to reality, criticising the politically militant
homosexuals such as Lindberg has several good grounds quite aside
from any prejudice. They promote homosexuality amongst adolescents
by misrepresentations of human biology. They promulgate falsehoods
about "safe" sex which are gravely misleading. They grossly
exaggerate the efficacy of condoms against HIV, in attempt to
continue the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle which was severely
challenged by the onset of the AIDS epidemic. The Men's Centre North
Shore, on whose committee I serve, could provide a couple of expert
interviewees from whom an interview could elicit the truth on these
important issues.
To conclude back on the philology theme:
the word "homophobia" hijacks an important form of word which should
be preserved for its valid & important function: Z-phobia means
irrational, debilitating fear of Z. Misuse of psychiatric diagnoses
for ideological purposes had a sordid history under Stalin and
Hitler, and should find no place in New Zealand public health
discussions.
You should at least desist from using this
lie-in-the-language "homophobia", and preferably become active in
explaining how it is wrong. Lies in the language are among the most
horribly effective and are central in the Goebbels tradition which,
to a most dismaying extent, perverts today's world. Try compiling a
list of lies-in-the-language: "reclaimed land" (meaning filled-in
water or wetland) etc. . . . [also: Rightsizing. Reforms
(Rogernomics, Ruthanasia). Women's liberation. Repatriation (export
of profits for foreign investors). Feminism.]
yrs etc
---------
One US state legislature once made a fool of itself by
declaring that 'pi' (the circle's ratio circumf./dia.) is 22/7. The
New Zealand legislature must not allow this comparable attempt to
change the dictionary.
To utter a deliberately deceitful nonsense, entailed in the
oxymoron 'same-sex marriage' and related deceitful terms such as
'marriage equality', is such a wrongful, disgraceful act for a
legislature that this reason alone would justify discharging the bill.
The bill's context
The bill is only the latest in the political campaign usually
ascribed to USA authors Erastes & Pill. Most of the aims there
defined two decades ago have now been attained. This decadent
process is now to be stopped. The civil union is the most that NZ
law should offer to deviants' unions.
Yes, same-sex unions are as a matter of fact deviant. The
human long-term intimate sexual relationship in which children, and
adults, are healthiest in mind & body is marriage. The other types
of relationship in the dictionary list are all much less successful,
in sustaining health of mind & body.
An aim of the bill is to legalise adoption by homosexual
couples. In a country lacking children for adoption by married
couples, that is a cruel policy.
Most of the other reasons normally urged against the bill are
in my opinion correct. In the absence of any valid reasons for such
a bill, it should be promptly discharged. As a tiresome distraction
from Parliament's proper business, it is inherently offensive to
respect for law.
I wish to appear before the committee at their venue closest
to my home.
L. R. B. MannPerceived needs of same-sex partners overrides needs of children in ‘backdoor’ changes sought to Adoption laws
Family lawyer Norman Elliott argues that changes to adoption ought not be made in a bill about marriage
“It would be irresponsible of Parliament and an injustice to children to approve a change to long-established adoption law on the coat tails of a change to marriage law. Such a change should only come about after due parliamentary process and full public debate”
The government administration select committee report to Parliament recommends the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill with certain amendments.
It also recommends consequential amendments to 14 other statutes, including the Adoption Act 1955 “to ensure that there will be no legal differences between different kinds of marriages”. If the recommendations are approved by Parliament, same-sex adoption will become law without further inquiry.
The committee notes that a homosexual or transgender person may legally adopt a child, but same-sex couples may not. It comments that such a position seems absurd. The amendments it recommends “will ensure that married couples are eligible to adopt, regardless of the gender of the adoptive parents”. There is emphasis on the rights of adults but no mention of the interests of children.
We have the extraordinary situation of a significant change to a long-standing law affecting children being brought about by a bill concerned with the perceived need for same-sex partners to have equality with married couples.
I believe New Zealanders expect the interests of children to be considered at the forefront of any legislation that directly affects them. This example suggests that in reality it is the interests of adults rather than children which come first.
The Adoption Act was passed in 1955 and is well overdue for review. One of its deficiencies is that it does not require the interests of children to be paramount in the application of the act. More recent family law statutes such as the Care of Children Act 2004 do. This lack is in conflict with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which New Zealand is a party.
Article 21 begins “States Parties that recognise and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration …” The current act merely requires the court to be satisfied that the adoption will promote the interests of the child.
In its 2000 Report No 65 entitled “Adoption and its Alternatives” the Law Commission stated it was in their view desirable that Parliament make plain that applications for adoption orders by same-sex couples should be judged by the essential question as to what is in the child’s best interests as a matter of fact, rather than by making assumptions as to eligibility of the applicants as a matter of law. It also stated there is no “right” of a same-sex couple to secure an adoption order – the relevant right is that of the child to the best arrangement that can be secured.
As well as allowing adoption by married couples the present act allows an individual person to adopt a child, although there are restrictions on a male adopting a female child. There are children living in families where the parent figures are same-sex couples, one of whom is the legal adoptive parent.
Because this situation is allowed under the law it might be suggested it is only a small step to allow both adults to become adoptive parents. A mother or a father bringing up a child on their own is common in our society. That is very different however from a child having two legal fathers or two legal mothers, the consequence of same-sex adoption.
Overall the Law Commission’s view was that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that adoption by same-sex adopters cannot be in the best interests of the child so as to justify disqualifying same-sex couples from being eligible to apply. There were some reservations expressed by the commission. While stating that research evidence suggested that on the whole children do not experience any negative consequences of being raised by lesbian mothers, there were not sufficient studies to effectively evaluate the impact of male homosexual parenting on adopted children.
There is no suggestion in the select committee’s report that the recommended changes to the Adoption Act are as a result of consideration of the Law Commission’s report. Even if there was, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Parliament to proceed with the changes on the basis of recommendations in a report which is now 12 years old without public debate and full consideration of up to date research.
An amended Adoption Act that gives first consideration to a child’s best interests might also contain some guiding principles to help the Family Court in its decision-making. One might be that there should be some involvement of opposite gender role models in the life of the child.
There has not been any real public debate about whether the Adoption Act should be changed to allow same-sex adoption. The debate so far has been around same-sex couples being able to marry. That has been an adult-focused debate. It is not the same issue as whether two persons of the same-sex should be authorised by law to adopt a child.
It would be irresponsible of Parliament and an injustice to children to approve a change to long-established adoption law on the coat tails of a change to marriage law. Such a change should only come about after due parliamentary process and full public debate.
Norman Elliott is an Auckland lawyer who has represented children in parenting and adoption cases in the Family Court. He is also deputy chair of the Auckland Catholic diocese Justice and Peace Commission.
Source: Norman Elliot: Consider children’s rights too. Monday Mar 11, 2013
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10870391
Unmasking the Misinformation Campaign of the Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Lobbyists
SUMMARY OF A Legal Opinion obtained from Barrister Ian Bassett by Family First NZ. It has labeled the conscientious exemption proposed by the Select Committee Report on the same-sex marriage bill as ‘unprincipled and wrong’, ‘misguided’, ‘unjustifiably discriminatory’, and ‘based upon flawed legal advice’.
If the [Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Amendment] Bill was enacted incorporating the s5A recommendations of the Select Committee then:
Q1: Will marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion (who are also marriage celebrants) be forced to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’ even if to do so would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion?
Protected
(a) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.
NOT Protected
(b) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will not be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if the religious body or the approved organisation endorsed same sex marriage.
Unclear
(c) It is unclear what will be the position of a marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation), where the approved religious body or organisation is split on the issue of same sex marriage or refuses to adopt an official position on the issue.
NOT Protected
(d) (i) Independent marriage celebrants (ie who are not celebrants within (a) above) will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.
NOT Protected
(ii) Marriage registrars will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.
Q2: Will temples, mosques, synagogues, churches and other places of worship be required to be used to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’?
NOT Protected
(e) Church ministers, marriage celebrants, church elders (or persons or entity) supplying their churches (or temples or mosques or synagogues) to the public will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and acting unlawfully, if they refuse to supply their churches to a couple seeking to be married, by reason of the same sex of the couple.
READ THE FULL LEGAL OPINION
Legal Opinion on Gay Marriage Exemption Reveals Major Shortcomings – Legal Opinion from Barrister Ian Bassett
Family First NZ Media Release 8 March 2013:
A Legal Opinion obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett has
labeled the conscientious exemption proposed by the Select Committee Report on
the same-sex marriage bill as ‘unprincipled and wrong’, ‘misguided’,
‘unjustifiably discriminatory’, and ‘based upon flawed legal advice’.
“The Report of the Government Administration Select Committee states: ‘It is our
intention that the passage of this bill should not impact negatively upon
people’s religious freedoms… The bill seeks to extend the legal right to
marry to same-sex couples; it does not seek to interfere with people’s
religious freedoms.’ Yet the Legal Opinion clearly explains that ‘the advice of
the Crown Law Office and the Ministry of Justice and the resultant
recommendation of the Select Committee will interfere with people’s rights to
act according to their beliefs and conscience'”, says Bob McCoskrie, National
Director of Family First NZ.
“Mr Bassett highlights that only 32% of marriages conducted in New Zealand will
be conducted by celebrants who may have the benefit of the religious
conscientious exemption in the proposed s5A put forward by the Select
Committee, and says that ‘the narrowness of the conscientious exemption
provided by the proposed s5A seriously undercuts the assurances given by MP
Louisa Wall to Parliament’ during the 1st Reading and that ‘If the Bill is
enacted as recommended by the Select Committee report, then celebrants who do
not have the benefit of the proposed s5A will not be able lawfully to refuse to
perform a marriage by reason of the same sex of the couple and will be subject
thereby to coercion by the State to act contrary to their religious beliefs and
conscience. Such coercion by the State is contrary to ss13 and 15 of the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990’.”
The Legal Opinion also says the Select Committee, by rejecting advice from Crown
Law, considers it to be appropriate that it be unlawful for churches, temples,
mosques, synagogues and other places of worship to refuse to host same-sex
‘marriages’ if the building is normally made available to the public.
Crown Law’s letter of advice to the Select Committee dated 21 November 2013
stated: “Therefore if Parliament intends that religious congregations not be
required to permit their place of worship to be used for the solemnisation of
same sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs, we recommend that this
be made explicit in the legislation to the put the issue beyond doubt.”
“Ian Bassett warns that ‘there will also be an associated practical problem if
the approved religious body or organisation is split on the issue of same sex
marriage or refuses to adopt an official position on the issue’. This may be
significant for ministers and celebrants associated with the Methodist and
Anglican denominations who are currently debating the issue,” says Mr
McCoskrie.
Marriage registrars are also at risk. Mr Bassett says ‘there may be persons in
New Zealand who became marriage registrars at a time when same sex marriages
were not in contemplation and who (unless there is an exemption) will be forced
against their conscience to officiate at same sex marriages or else face
dismissal from their employment.’
“This Bill will provide a culture of coercion whereby celebrants or registrars
that don’t fall within the exemptions will not be lawfully able to refuse to
perform a same-sex marriage by reason of the same-sex of the couple, despite
the politicians promising otherwise,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Despite all the hype and sales pitch, this Bill has failed to deliver what was
promised, and politicians should vote against it.”
SUMMARY of Legal Opinion
If the Bill was enacted incorporating the s5A recommendations of the Select
Committee then:
Q1: Will marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion (who
are also marriage celebrants) be forced to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’ even
if to do so would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the marriage
celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion?
PROTECTED
(a) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a
religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person
nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will be able
lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would
contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs
or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.
NOT PROTECTED
(b) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a
religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person
nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will not be able
lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if the religious body or the
approved organisation endorsed same sex marriage.
UNCLEAR
(c) It is unclear what will be the position of a marriage celebrant (who is a
minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1)
or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved
organisation), where the approved religious body or organisation is split on
the issue of same sex marriage or refuses to adopt an official position on the
issue.
NOT PROTECTED
(d) (i) Independent marriage celebrants (ie who are not celebrants within (a)
above) will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage
even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or
conscience.
(ii) Marriage registrars will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same
sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious
beliefs or conscience.
Q2: Will temples, mosques, synagogues, churches and other places of worship be
required to be used to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’?
NOT PROTECTED
(e) Church ministers, marriage celebrants, church elders (or persons or entity)
supplying their churches (or temples or mosques or synagogues) to the public
will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and acting unlawfully, if they
refuse to supply their churches to a couple seeking to be married, by reason of
the same sex of the couple..
READ FULL OPINION
Gay ‘marriage’ is not a ‘human right’: ruling by European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.
Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.
The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.
It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.