SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Signatures Supporting Current Marriage Definition Presented to MPs by Family First NZ – a registered charity

by Leave a Comment

MEDIA RELEASE – Family First 28 August: Family First NZ [a registered charity and lobby group] has presented a petition containing the signatures of almost 50,000 kiwis to a group of MP’s from Labour, National and NZ First calling on them to reject the bill to redefine marriage when it comes up for its 1st Reading tomorrow.

The statement presented says “I support the definition of marriage in New Zealand being maintained as one man one woman. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

“This is an incredible response considering we only launched the campaign a month ago. It shows the level of public opposition to the bill, and the signatures continue to pour in,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“This is not an ‘anti’ campaign. We all support equality. But same-sex couples already have legal recognition through civil unions, so there is no need to redefine marriage. It’s not discriminatory to support the existing definition of marriage. Many homosexuals do not support the call for same-sex marriage – yet they are certainly not ‘homophobic’ or ‘bigoted’ which are lazy labels given to anyone supporting the current definition of marriage.”

“Politicians understood that when they passed the civil unions. Both Labour and Green MP’s acknowledged the structure, traditional value and cultural institution of marriage, and that civil unions was the ‘acceptable alternative’. Nothing has changed since then,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“If marriage is redefined once, there is nothing to stop it continuing to be redefined to allow polygamy, polyamory and adult incest relationships. Throughout history and in virtually all human societies, marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father. Marriage is about giving every child a loving and biologically connected and committed mother and father. Marriage is how societies do this.”

Family First is calling on MP’s to reject the marriage amendment bill and to focus on more urgent issues such as employment, child abuse, negotiating our way through the recession, restoring Christchurch, and dealing with family poverty.

ENDS

Church Ministers Cannot Refuse To Perform Same-Sex Marriages – Legal Opinion released by Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

FAMILY FIRST NZ MEDIA RELEASE 28 August states: A legal opinion obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett describes the Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Act Bill, if it is enacted, as having the following effects:

(1)   Marriage celebrants (including church ministers) exercising their public function will be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993, if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants by reason of the same sex of a couple seeking to be married.

(2)  Church ministers, marriage celebrants, church elders/ leaders, photographers and caterers and any other person or entity supplying services to the public will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993, if they refuse to supply services to a couple seeking to be married, by reason of the same sex of the couple.

(3)  Adoption agencies and hoteliers and any other person or entity supplying services to the public will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993, if they refuse to supply services to a married couple by reason of the same sex of the couple.

The Human Rights Commission had earlier issued a statement on its website saying that “…religious officials and leaders are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.”

Ian Bassett’s legal opinion says that the view of the Human Rights Commission is legally wrong.

Grant Illingworth QC agrees in principle with the legal opinion provided by Ian Basset

DOWNLOAD FULL LEGAL OPINION BY BARRISTER IAN BASSETT
http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Legal-Opinion-Marriage-Act-Amendment-Bill.pdf

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 0275555542

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review – Family First NZ Media Release

by Leave a Comment

FAMILY FIRST NZ, a register charity lobby group, issued the following media release on 24 August:

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review

A Timaru couple whose experience of the anti-smacking law was used in the Prime Minister’s report on Section 59 by psychologist Nigel Latta, and whose integrity and honesty was called in to question along with a number of other parents, now have the government paperwork to prove that the report is based on false information, and are demanding an apology.

The parents’ experience has been featured both in NZ on the documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal”, and on 60 Minutes in Australia.

Parents Erik and Lisa Peterson whose children were removed from their home for 72 hours because of a botched CYF investigation over a smack have fought for over three years for the truth to be told. In their letter to Nigel Latta, they say:

“Your summary was based on our case file, and we took a great deal of issue with it. We also took great issue with you calling our integrity and honesty into question, albeit indirectly, on national television. You will by now have received a letter from the Ministry of Social Development containing a number of corrections to the error ridden file that you based that summary on. (Review panelist and MSD Head) Peter Hughes says your summary was accurate because you read our case file – the same case file which required a staggering two and a half pages of corrections! ….

“Mr. Latta, the section 59 Review states that you found “the agencies responded appropriately and proportionately” in each of the cases. I cannot speak for anyone else, but our family was not treated appropriately or proportionately. CYF were responsible for at least three breaches of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 in the investigation of our family. Until very recently, they were also in breach of the Privacy Act. Hardly appropriate behaviour. We lost our children for 72 hours because the local workers couldn’t be bothered to meet on a Friday afternoon. Hardly an appropriate or proportional response.

“It is my view that you owe our family an apology. I would suggest our experience is not unique among those families reviewed. It is most probable that you owe several families an apology.

“With hope of closure after a three and a half year battle. Erik and Lisa Petersen”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ adds: “The Latta review contained glaring errors including misrepresentation of basic facts, contained alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive, and failed to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow the voices of families who had been victims of the new law to be heard. It also failed to examine the outcomes of the investigations and whether the law was being applied as Parliament intended. It clearly is not.”

A group of parents, whose experiences were included in the report, released a statement immediately after the Prime Minister and Nigel Latta presented the report in 2009, saying

“This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides. We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area. Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns. We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts. The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.”

“The Peterson’s have sought to set the record straight. We will be encouraging other parents misrepresented in the report to do likewise,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Official Information Act documentation requested by Family First seems to indicate that the review involved only two meetings of the full panel, ‘rides in a cop car’, sitting at the Police Communications Centre for a couple of hours, and misinterpreting and misrepresenting cases put forward by us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “New cases are being brought to our attention on a regular basis – many of which have been featured in the media.”

The full evidence of the Petersen case and four others can be viewed here www.protectgoodparents.org.nz

ENDS

Bob McCoskrie: State has no authority to reinvent marriage

by Leave a Comment

NZ Herald 1 August 2012: Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ – a charity – lobby group registered with the Charities Commission on 21 March 2007 (Reg. No. CC10094), has written today:

 

Stephen Rainbow (NZ Herald 31 July 2012) seems to make a plausible argument that allowing same-sex marriage will attract back to NZ same-sex couples who want to be married – until we look at the international evidence.

In Australia, studies have found that only about one-fifth of homosexuals and lesbians have shown an interest in same-sex marriage. In the Netherlands, the first country to legally recognise same-sex marriage, studies have shown only around 6 per cent of homosexuals have married during the first five years of legalisation.

In Belgium, it is estimated at less than 5 per cent and in Canada, around 10 per cent on average across the provinces. The US state of Massachusetts seems to be doing the strongest with 16.7 per cent.

Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that civil unions are a second-class marriage but there are many same-sex advocates who argue against “marriage” for same-sex couples, and even suggest that the claim is hurtful to those who have deliberately chosen civil unions.

Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.

If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can lead to children and bring with it a further obligation to care for those children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed, and the state would not have been interested in it.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. On average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.

As the prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

It is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry but neither can a lot of other people. A 5-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. Two old aunties living together cannot marry. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless.

It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

It is also important to note that marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage.

If the law were to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, it could then be argued that we are discriminating against those seeking polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incestuous unions – if all that counts is love and equality.

As then-Labour leader Phil Goff argued at our 2011 Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone. Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron.

Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not “anti-gay”. Gays and lesbians do 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 reinvent

Registered Charity’s website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz owned by Family First NZ) suffers major attack

by 1 Comment

A website opposed to a law change that would allow gay marriage has been removed from the internet, less than 12 hours after its launch.

Conservative lobby group Family First [which was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission in 2007] this morning announced the launch of the protectmarriage site after Labour MP Louisa Wall’s members bill to redefine marriage, which is not currently defined in the Marriage Act, was pulled from the ballot last week.

The bill would make it clear that two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, could marry.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said his group had launched the website to protect the current definition of marriage, which he described as “one man, one woman”.

The website at www.protectmarriage.org.nz featured an online petition to Parliament and a tool to let people contact MPs to express their views.

But by midday the site had crashed after a large-scale denial of service attack.

The IP addresses associated with the attack were being actively blocked and by 2pm the website was up and running again.

However, by 5pm the website domain had been completely removed.

“Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed,” the web host [247 hosting.co.nz] said.

It was not known where the attacks were coming from, Mr McCoskrie said.

Mr McCoskrie was told it was a fairly major attack, which was aimed at the protectmarriage website but also took down quite a few of the host’s other websites.

“You always hope you can have a robust debate about ideas, and show respect for each other but when you’re trying to take out each other’s website it kind of suggests that you’re not going to get a good debate, so that’s disappointing.”

In explaining the website this morning Mr McCoskrie said politicians had been hammered recently with reasons to redefine marriage, and the website would help to balance the debate.

“Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it,”he said.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.”

Adding to the website’s early-launch woes, US band Train is also vowing to get one of their songs removed from the website, after a YouTube link to the song Marry Me was placed on the website without them knowing.

Train was asked yesterday by a New Zealand tweeter, @Mikey_J_S, why their music video appeared on the website.

Train responded: “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip”.

Mr McCoskrie said he had not yet heard from Train, and the song remained on the website.

“We’re not going to do anything based on Twitter, but if they contact us and ask us to remove, we will certainly respect their wishes.”

Initial indications are that the bill has the numbers to pass. Of the 76 of Parliament’s 122 MPs who responded to a New Zealand Herald survey last week, a clear majority of 43 were in support of the bill or leaning towards backing it.

Labour leader David Shearer has said he will support the bill, and Prime Minister John Key today said he would vote in favour the bill.

Source:

Anti-gay marriage website attacked 30 July 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280APNZ