SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Legal Experts Dispute Human Rights Commission On Effects of Gay Marriage

by Leave a Comment

In its Media Release issued today, Family First NZ , a registered charity and lobby group, says:

The Human Rights Commission is legally wrong on the effects of the Marriage Amendment Bill, and that even the NZ Law Society and 24 members of the law faculty of Victoria University have called both MP Louisa Wall and the HRC’s interpretation of the law in to question in their submissions to the Select Committee.

 “The bottom line is that the Human Rights Commission has endorsed and lobbied for this bill since day one, and they should not be depended on for independent legal analysis,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “Based on the interpretation of s29 by the HRC and Louisa Wall, a marriage celebrant could lawfully decline to marry a particular couple because they are of different races or because the marriage celebrant disliked persons of a certain race (i.e. racial discrimination). Of course, that is completely unlawful and would quite rightly be a breach of s19 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Legal opinions obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett say that ‘s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant to discriminate against homosexuals on grounds of sexual orientation. It is legally incorrect to infer otherwise’. And that ‘…if the Bill is passed in its present form, then a marriage celebrant (and any church minister in his or her capacity as a marriage celebrant) will not be able lawfully to decline to marry a couple by reason that the couple are of the same sex (i.e. sexual orientation discrimination)’. 

“The New Zealand Law Society and the Victoria University law faculty members’ submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012), has now questioned the validity of the assurances given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament and by the Human Rights Commission in their submission.”

“The Law Society says celebrants may still be bound under human rights guidelines introduced after the Marriage Act and that there is significant doubt around the effect of s29, and members of Victoria University’s law faculty submit that the ambiguity should not be left for the courts to resolve,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“All this uncertainty and potential for costly litigation simply highlights that there are both intended and unintended consequences of changing the definition of marriage, and the Marriage Act should simply be left as is.”

ENDS

Source: Family First Media Release 22 November

www.familyfirst.org.nz

Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel: Labour MPs ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill

by 1 Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity and lobby group, opposed to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, issued a Media Release today headed “Labour MP’s ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill”. It states:

Family First NZ has released a legal opinion which calls into question the validity of the assurances given in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill by the Bill’s author [Labour MP] Louisa Wall, and also points out the legal incorrectness of statements made to a newspaper by Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel.

An initial legal opinion (dated 27 Aug 2012) obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett before the 1st Reading in Parliament stated that marriage celebrants (including church ministers) exercising their public function will be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and acting unlawfully if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants by reason of the same sex of a couple seeking to be married.

On 29 August 2012 in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall stated that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has.

 

“The New Zealand Law Society submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has now questioned the validity of that assurance given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel also accused Family First NZ of ‘bearing false witness’ and ‘scaremongering’ when we raised concerns about the effect of the Bill, but our updated legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has labeled Chauvel’s statements about the effects of the Bill as ‘legally incorrect‘, ‘imprecise’ and confusing some of the issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“It appears Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel misunderstand the legal implications of the Bill.  The public and other politicians are not hearing the full story. The bill should be voted down. The social and legal ramifications are too great.”

Key Points of Legal Opinion – dated 19 November 2012

  • s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant (including a church minister who is a celebrant) to refuse to perform a same sex marriage.
  • The assurance given by Louisa Wall in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Bill, that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has, is legally wrong.
  • If the Bill is passed, then a marriage celebrant (and any church minister in his or her capacity as a marriage celebrant) will not be able lawfully to decline to marry a couple by reason that the couple are of the same sex.
  • Statements made by Charles Chauvel confuse the performance of a religious ceremony with the public function of a marriage celebrant.
  • If a religious body or group chooses to supply its premises for hire to the public (whether ‘consecrated’ or ‘non-consecrated space’, whether ‘sanctified’ or ‘non-sanctified space’ within a church, mosque, synagogue, tabernacle or temple), then it cannot refuse to do so by reason of any prohibited ground of discrimination in s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
  • It is not ‘scaremongering’ to state the law.

Source: Family First NZ media Releas 20 November 2012. www.familyfirst.org.nz

Family First NZ Campaign targets MPs’ votes on same-sex marriage bill – Rotorua Daily Post

by Leave a Comment

Rotorua Daily Post 17 Oct 2012
Brochures asking people to urge MPs to vote against a same-sex marriage bill have been distributed in Rotorua with at least one local church making them available to parishioners.

Family First New Zealand [a registered charity] has published and distributed 70,000 brochures throughout the country encouraging people to voice their concerns about legalising same-sex marriage.

The brochures are part of its national campaign – Protect Marriage – which encourages people to write to the Parliament’s select committee with their concerns and sign a petition against an amendment to the 1995 Marriage Act that would allow same-sex couples to marry.

The brochures call for people to share their personal stories and views of marriage with the select committee before MPs vote on the second reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill early next year.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said it had already gained more than 55,000 signatures in the online component of the campaign and was aiming to get 100,000 by October 26 to present to Parliament ahead of the second reading.

Mr McCoskrie said he believed, based on the signatures they had collected and a Research NZ poll last month, public support for same-sex marriage was dropping.

“Only 49 per cent of the 500 respondents to the poll said they were in favour of same-sex couples being allowed to marry. This was down from 60 per cent in the same July 2011 poll by the company,” he said.

Mr McCoskrie said support had dropped because people were beginning to understand what the changes would mean for marriage and what was currently available to same-sex couples.

“A hundred and fifty pieces of legislation were changed in 2004 to recognise same-sex relationships under the Civil Union Act so there is no need to redefine marriage to achieve equality. The state which did not invent marriage has no authority to re-invent it,” he said. “People are also thinking more deeply about the issue rather than just listening to sound bites. Gays and lesbians have a right to form meaningful relationships they just do not have a right to redefine marriage. It is perfectly possible to support traditional marriage, while also recognising and respecting the rights of others.”
http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/news/campaign-targets-mps-votes/1585763/

Support for Gay Marriage Drops In Latest Poll

by Leave a Comment

In its Media Release issued today Family First NZ says that a Research NZ poll shows that support for same-sex marriage has dropped to less than 50%, down 11% from a similar poll in 2011. 

“Only 49% of the 500 respondents said that they were in favour of same sex couples being allowed to marry. This is down from 60% in a July 2011 poll by the same research company,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Earlier polling of 1,000 NZ’ers through independent research company Curia Market Research found greater support for maintaining the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. All this suggests that there is still debate to be had on this issue.”

“What Research NZ didn’t ask – and could have – was whether NZ’ers felt that the availability of Civil Unions dealt with the issue of same-sex couples who wanted their relationship legally recognised. Some respondents who answered yes to same-sex marriage may believe that this option is sufficient without redefining marriage.”

“It is perfectly possible to support traditional marriage, while also recognising and respecting the rights of others. There is absolutely no need to redefine marriage to provide legal recognition and protection for committed same-sex relationships. In 2004, the government introduced Civil Unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to achieve this very thing.” 

“In the US, polls have also shown support for same-sex marriage increasing, yet in 32 states where the issue has been on the ballet, voters have rejected it. Experts have said that the phrasing of the question can determine the outcome of the poll,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Gays and lesbians have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage. The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.”

2012 poll:

http://www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/RNZ%20Media%20Release%20-%20Same%20sex%20marriage.pdf

2011 poll:

http://www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/RNZ%20Media%20Release%20-%202011-07-12%20Same%20sex%20marriages.pdf

ENDS

Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men – NZ Herald article by lecturer and author – Laurie Guy

by Leave a Comment

All you need is love. That is the theme song of pro-same-sex marriage proponents. It is the slogan of Louisa Wall, author of the same-sex marriage bill. If two gay people love each other and want to “marry”, why don’t we allow this? But is love enough?

In answering that question, we need to be aware of two other questions: what is marriage? And why is the state involved? The latter question is crucial, because the core issue is one of affirmation, not rights – rights can be dealt with by specific legislation without amending the Marriage Act and upsetting lots of people.

Apart from conveying rights, marriage provides affirmation that the state/society encourages this relationship as a good thing. A crucial question is whether gay relationships are such a good thing as to be endorsed by society as “marriage”.

We should look at the issue of social endorsement through four lenses: love, commitment, health, and society’s interests.

Let’s begin with love. What is “love”? The word covers a raft of sometimes contrary meanings, from sexual desire centred on “my” self-gratification, to heroic self-giving for another. Both heterosexual and same-sex unions may well pass (or fail) this test. The love issue does not debar same-sex marriages.

However, love alone is not enough. It can be fleeting and transient. If marriage is to be serious and not trivial, it needs longevity, buttressed by commitment and faithfulness.

What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.

Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).

Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).

The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.

Can we affirm male gay relationships to the level of “marriage”, given the data on faithfulness and health? One can argue change on the basis of “me”, “my rights” and “choice”. But the debate is also about the good of society.

What society needs are stable, faithful, healthy relationships. Stable marriage has gravely weakened in the last generation. There is deep hurt and scarring of many, especially children, as a consequence.

In a direct sense gay “marriage” will not make this worse. Indirectly, however, it will, because it makes marriage, which for many is becoming vague and fuzzy, vaguer and fuzzier still. It is social engineering – with its negative aspects ignored.

We need to have a deep and wide debate, looking at all factors. The same-sex marriage debate is currently far too simplistic. The draft bill is a daft bill.

Laurie Guy is author of Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand 1960-1986 (Victoria University Press, 2002). He lectures in church history at Auckland University’s school of theology, and also at Carey Baptist College.

Source: Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men. 31 August 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

Note: The Objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. include: “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity ……” (s. 2d of Constitution).