SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Same-sex ‘marriage’: John Key on “gay” ‘marriage’, civil unions and Brad Pitt

by Leave a Comment

Shortly before the New Zealand general election on 8 November 2008, John Key, who was the then deputy leader of the opposition National Party, was asked by GayExpress Magazine whether he would “vote for civil unions if it were presented again today”. His response was “No”. GayExpress notes that he had opposed civil unions at the second reading of the Civil Union bill in 2004, along with 24 other National MPs. When asked by the GayExpress whether he would vote for “gay marriage” if it were presented today (2008), he answered “No”.

Just four and a half years later, Prime Minister John Key, along with the majority of his party, have indicated that they will be voting in support of Louisa Wall’s ‘same-sex marriage’ bill on Wednesday 17 April 2013. (Neither the National Party, nor any other party indicated in their respective election manifestos that they were intending to bring in or push for same-sex  ‘marriage’ should they become the government)

The Rt. Hon. John Key was featured in television reports on the February 2013 Big Gay Out being kissed and hugged by homosexual men and cosying up to “drag queens”. The Stuff report states:

“John Key is usually popular at the largest gay pride event in New Zealand… It was his seventh time at the event…. Key spoke to the crowd and reaffirmed his plans to vote for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Bill, which would see same sex couples afforded the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.”

It is noteworthy that when Key was asked by GayExpress “who would be go gay for?” … and “after taking a moment to compose himself”  – he responded:

“‘Brad Pit. Now that he’s a bit older, he’s a bit of a looker. I was going to say Tom Cruise but someone of his age shouldn’t look that age.”

Who John Key would want to have “gay” sex with is apparently of great interest to the readers of Gay Express.

Family First NZ is running a Marriage Pledge campaign calling voters not to support any political party at the next election whose leader has supported Louisa Wall’s bill that supports “gay” marriage.

References:

Express 22 Oct – 4 Nov 2008. Face of Election Special – John Key by Hannah JV

http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/John-Key-Gay-express.pdf

Mixed reception for Key at Big Gay Out by Charles Anderson, 10 February 2013

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8284962/Mixed-reception-for-Key-at-Big-Gay-Out

http://www.mymarriagepledge.org.nz/

“Natural marriage once based on real sexual difference is to become a bastard child of the state”

by Leave a Comment

We are now experiencing the reverse of what happened in third-century Rome.

The absolute power of the state gave way to the new faith; Christianity and its declaration that the state is answerable to God. It’s been a mixed bag and a bit of a mess from time to time but it’s only in the past few decades that God has been banished from the public square.

The historical and theological irony should be obvious. Same-sex marriage is the consequence and symbol of that banishment because it is in harmony with the new religion. Marriage, an institution shaped by nature and reinforced by history, will become the product of social evolution as soon as same-sex marriage becomes law. Natural marriage once based on real sexual difference is to become a bastard child of the state. So we can make marriage what we like. No longer will it make us.

Marriage which was once a basic institution of civil society will become a contract between any two people for their assumed bliss and benefit. It will have very little to do with the protection of children or social order. Children will be trophies rather than the cement of inter-generational connection.

It is not that natural marriage is essentially a religious phenomenon. Marriage transcends religion and politics but not, it would seem human desire to manipulate to its own short-sighted end. And that’s the problem. That desire which has become a demand makes it necessary for the state to legally redefine marriage. The state cannot resist. Having lost the foundation it discovered in the third century it has become an authority yielding to the demands of fashion and relevance.

Source:

Quoted from:

Bruce Logan: Thatcher, and God, are of another era. Published: April 12, 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10877013

Nearly 15,000 French mayors will refuse to perform homosexual ‘marriages’

by Leave a Comment

PARIS, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the organization Mayors for Children, approximately 14,900 French mayors will refuse to celebrate “marriages” between couples of the same sex. More than 20,000 mayors and assistant mayors have signed a petition stating, “I am opposed to the bill that opens marriage and the adoption of children by two people of the same sex.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nearly-15000-french-mayors-will-refuse-to-perform-homosexual-marriages

A survey conducted by the French polling agency IFOP offers confirmation of the startling figures, estimating that 52 percent of the country’s mayors are opposed to the bill.

In France, mayors conduct civil marriage ceremonies or authorize others to do so.

According to Franck Meyer, mayor of the town of Sottesville-sous-le Val and spokesman for the group, in a total of 649 jurisdictions, not a single elected official is willing to perform civil “marriages” for homosexuals.

Meyer told the French magazine Le Figaro that “the law (creating homosexual “marriage”) will be difficult to apply throughout the territory, if it is approved.”

“It’s rare for a bill to unite so many local elected officials against it!” he added, and noted that 3,000 leftist officials have also signed in opposition.

“These days, mayors have many other reasons for discontent, for example the electoral reform and the cycle of the school year, but this is the first time that such a group of mayors has been created,” he said.

Despite the widespread opposition of elected officials, as well as massive demonstrations of opposition to the legalization of homosexual “marriage” and adoption, both houses of the French Parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate, have approved a bill to that effect.

The National Assembly is scheduled to review the law again next month before final approval.

According to various surveys in the last two years, more than 60 percent of French say they support homosexual “marriage,” although less than 50 percent agree with permitting homosexual couples to adopt.

The current figures represent a major leap for the homosexual agenda in France similar to that of the United States. As late as 2006, 51 percent were opposed to homosexual “marriage” and 60 percent opposed to homosexual adoption.

Source:  Nearly 15,000 French mayors will refuse to perform homosexual ‘marriages’ group says

By Mathew Cullinan Hoffman

Thursday April 11, 2013

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nearly-15000-french-mayors-will-refuse-to-perform-homosexual-marriages

Same-sex ‘marriage’: Teen Suicide tragedies manipulated to advance “gay” agenda

by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ in its submission to the Government Administration Committee on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill highlighted the misrepresentation of research on teen suicide rates by openly “gay” man Green MP Kevin Hague, a member of the committee, and  by the sponsor of the bill “openly lesbian” Labour List MP Louisa Wall, in order to “advance” their “agenda” (same-sex ‘marriage’). Neither MP nor any other supporter of the bill has responded to the allegations of misrepresentation.

Both MPs have indicated publicly that they are not really interested in getting married to their respective same-sex partners, should the bill pass into law. Their personal disinterest in ‘marriage’, lack of supporting evidence provided, and the legally flawed nature of the bill they are pushing for, has led many opponents to question their claims that legalizing “gay” ‘marriage’ in New Zealand would actually reduce youth suicide rates among the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender, Intersex, Queer (LGBTIQ) community.

The bills supporters have provided no scientific evidence whatsoever for their claims concerning teen suicide rate reductions from any peer-reviewed research publications, and yet a number of MPs now supporting the bill have been persuaded by such spurious claims, including National MP – Dr Paul Hutchison, who represents the Hunua electorate. One wonders why he has failed to present the hard evidence to the country in his speeches on the bill, rather than apparently relying on anecdotal hearsay from Louisa Wall.

see: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830418

The Family First submission stated:

MISREPRESENTING RESEARCH ON TEEN SUICIDE

We note comments made by politicians and supporters of the bill relating to teen suicide.[i]They have referred to research done by the New Zealand Adolescent Health Research group, and they suggest that the disproportionately high rates of suicide attempts by same-sex attracted teens is due in part to the current definition of marriage.

But significantly, the report says:

“It is apparent that further investigation of potential differences according to sexual attraction is warranted and that studies in the area of human sexuality require some understanding of a range of inter-related concepts, with the issues of definition and description holding particular importance.” (page 5)

And in a comparison of rates between 2001 and 2007, the report says:

“There were no major changes observed between the two surveys (2001 and 2007) in the proportions of same/both-sex-attracted students reporting depressive symptoms or suicide attempts, even though there were substantial reductions in suicide attempts among opposite sex- attracted students over that time.” (page 21)

This is significant because during this period of time, major changes were made to legislation regarding same-sex couples including the Civil Union Act and the Relationships Act. If the assertions were correct, there should have been a drop in these rates.

Massachusetts has been tracking gay high school students for a decade using the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behaviour Survey. In 2001, gay teens in Massachusetts were almost four times more likely to have attempted suicide (31% vs. 8%). In 2007 — after four years of legalised same-sex marriage in that state — gay teens were still about four times more likely to attempt suicide than non-gay teens (29% vs. 6%).[ii]

What politicians and supporters also didn’t mention was one of the conclusions from the Fergusson, Horwood & Beautrais 1999 study (quoted in the Youth ’07 report) –

“it has been argued that because of a series of social processes that centre on homophobic attitudes, GLB youth are exposed to serious personal stresses that increase their likelihood of suicidal behaviour. However, a reappraisal of these claims showed them not to be well founded in evidence, and reviews of this issue concluded that problems in existing research were such that no clear conclusions about the role of sexual orientation in suicidal behaviour could be drawn.”[iii]

Teen suicide is always a tragedy. But tragedies should not be manipulated in order to advance an agenda.

The attempts to argue that if we allow same-sex marriage, same-sex attracted teens will be less likely to have disproportionately high rates of alcohol and other drug-abuse problems, depression, other mental health problems, self-harm, unsafe sexual behaviour, including HIV risk, and suicide attempts are not supported by research, and are therefore not relevant to this particular debate

References:

Understanding the definition of marriage – OSV Newsweekly

by Leave a Comment

Professor co-authors book on what the implications of redefining marriage could families and society.  By Brandon Vogt – OSV Newsweekly, (13 January 2013)

Robert P. George is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. He is an expert on marital law and a strong advocate of traditional marriage. 

Along with Sherif Girgis, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University, and Ryan T. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, George is the co-author of a new book titled, “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (Encounter Books, $15.99). It’s based on their renowned academic paper on the same topic that appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

George recently spoke with Our Sunday Visitor about the book, his work and the main arguments surrounding same-sex marriage.

Our Sunday Visitor: In the book, you say the entire marriage debate hinges on one question: What is marriage? Why is that question so important?

Robert P. George: Advocates of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships appeal to the principle of equality. We cannot, however, understand what equality does and does not require without first determining what marriage is.

Marriage laws will always draw distinctions between the types of relationship that count as marital and the types that do not. Appeals against the distinctions they draw based on claims about equality will in every case depend for their validity on whether the distinctions are arbitrary. Whether the distinctions are, in truth, arbitrary or non-arbitrary will turn on a judgment of what marriage is.

So, the key question is: What is marriage? Yet this is the question that those seeking to redefine marriage seek desperately to avoid. They hold to the unquestioned assumption that marriage, properly understood, is simply an especially intense emotional bond, and that the marital relationship is merely a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership. This assumption underwrites their claim that distinguishing “same-sex” from “opposite-sex” partnerships in defining marriage is arbitrary and therefore a form of invidious discrimination.

The assumption, however, turns out to lack credibility. It cannot be squared with the history of our law and practice of marriage, or with aspects of marriage that remain, to a considerable extent, uncontroversial.

For example, it cannot make sense of why marriage is necessarily a sexual partnership, as opposed to a partnership that could just as well be integrated around other (nonsexual) shared interests, activities or objectives (a love of tennis or literature, a shared commitment to a political or religious cause, or whatever).

Nor — quite crucially — can it make sense of why marriage is a union of two persons, and not three or more (triads, quadrads, etc.) in polyamorous sexual partnerships.

What can account for, explain and justify these features of marriage is the traditional understanding of marriage as a conjugal union. This type of union is a multilevel (bodily as well as emotional) sharing of life that is made possible by the sexual-reproductive complementarity of man and woman. It is oriented to, and would naturally be fulfilled by, the spouses’ conceiving and rearing children together.

OSV: Some people wonder why the government even concerns itself with marriage. Why does it regulate this type of relationship?

George: Marriage is critical to the success of any society because it is the way that mothers and fathers are united to each other in a relationship uniquely apt for the project of child rearing. Now, obviously, law and the state have a profound interest in successful child rearing. Every other social good depends on that.

So, although the state did not invent marriage — marriage, properly understood, is a pre-political institution — the state rightly and necessarily recognizes marriages, distinguishes marital from nonmarital forms of relationships, and supports, regulates and promotes marriage in the hope of sustaining a vibrant marriage culture.

This explains why, historically and across cultures, governments have formally recognized and regulated marriages, even though they have not done that for ordinary friendships, relationships among siblings or purely religious sacraments and ceremonies, such as baptisms and bar mitzvahs.

OSV: How would legally recognizing same-sex marriage weaken the marriage relationship?

George: Marriage properly understood is not exclusively about procreation and child rearing, though that is what grounds the state’s profound interest in marriage. But it is always linked, if indirectly, to those human goods and purposes. Marriage, as a conjugal union, is the kind of relationship that is oriented to, and would naturally be fulfilled by, the spouses’ having and rearing children together. Where a marriage is not blessed with children, it remains a marriage because being in a relationship of this nature is intrinsically good and fulfilling; it is not merely instrumentally valuable as a means to successful child rearing.

So, the law has always recognized consummated marriages as valid and perfected marriages, even where the spouses know that their sexual congress will not give them children. And the law has always treated all marriages, including the marriages of infertile spouses, as bound by the norms that shape and structure marriage as a conjugal union: sexual exclusivity and fidelity, and the pledge of permanence.

When the law abolishes the conjugal conception of marriage and replaces it with a counterfeit, the rational basis of these norms will be lost, and people’s belief in them and willingness to abide by them will erode as the norms make less and less sense to each generation. They will seem more and more like mere relics of a bygone age when marriage was understood differently.

Initially, of course, habitual ways of thinking and sentimental attachments will cause some people to continue to think of the norms as valid and binding, but that won’t last.

Is this conservative “scaremongering”? Hardly. Candid activists in the same-sex marriage movement say essentially the same thing. Writer Victoria Brownworth, for example, acknowledges that redefining marriage “will almost certainly weaken the institution of marriage.”

The difference between Brownworth and me is only this:  She thinks weakening marriage by redefining it would be a good thing, something that would liberate people and free them from constraints and “hang ups.”

I think it would be a catastrophe for children, for families, for communities and for the larger society, all of whom depend for their well-being on the health and vibrancy of the original and best “department of health, education and welfare,” the marriage-based family.

  • Read ‘Openers: Finding good answers in the same-sex marriage debate’ here.
  • Read  ‘Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage’ here.

Brandon Vogt is a Catholic writer and speaker who blogs at BrandonVogt.com. He is also the author of “The Church and New Media: Blogging Converts, Online Activists, and Bishops Who Tweet” (OSV, $13.95), which you can find at www.churchandnewmedia.com. He writes from Casselberry, Fla.

Source: http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10340/Understanding-definition-of-marriage.aspx

Newsletter Subscriptions
If you liked this article, you can sign up to receive free weekly newsletters.