SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

What is Marriage? – The Department of Internal Affairs provides clarity

by Leave a Comment

What is a Marriage?

A marriage is the formalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman, in accordance with the Marriage Act 1955. The Marriage Act 1955 provides the criteria, rules and processes for two people to have their relationship solemnised as a marriage (by way of a formal ceremony) and officially registered in New Zealand.

Anybody can marry in New Zealand, as long as they are legally free to marry. Under New Zealand law this means that:

  • A marriage may only be entered into by couples of opposite sexes.
  • They are not already married or in a civil union with a person other than the person they will be marrying (or if they have been married, the marriage has been dissolved by a court of law).
  • They are old enough (16 or over, although parental consent is required if either party is 16 or 17 years old).
  • They are not closely related by blood, marriage, civil union or adoption. Details of these “prohibited” marriages appear on the form ‘Notice of Intended Marriage’, which is used to apply for a marriage licence.

If you do not live in New Zealand, you should check with the authorities in the place where you normally live to see if there are any special steps you must take or rules that apply when you marry in New Zealand.
Marriages registered in other countries will generally be recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Note, same-sex couples may not be married in New Zealand.

Sourced on 5 August 2013

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-How-to-Get-a-Marriage-Licence#one

Marriage Act 1955: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/whole.html

Relationships Aotearoa Inc – an $8m government-funded charity

by 1 Comment

Relationships Aotearoa Inc, a registered charity (CC24033) which received $7.91 million in government funding last financial year (ended 30 June 2012), via Child Youth and Family and Ministry of Justice operating grants, is described in the Dominion Post today as a “family counselling organisation” for which “marital status was not the most important factor in raising children” [Emphasis added]. However, this charity that employed 60 full time workers and 250 part-timers last year and spent $8,184,156 on wages and salaries last as well as $11,600 on its honorarium payments to central boardroom members, has no mention of, let alone definition of, the words “marriage” or “family” or “marital status” or “children” in its  Constitution and Rules (amended and approved at its AGM on 26 November 2012).

Its Constitution Objects” (available on the Charities website (www.charities.govt.nz) have all been approved by Charity Services/Department of Internal Affairs as serving “charitable purposes”. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution/Rules that the charity has any obligation, duty of care or interest in educating parents, whether married or unmarried, in the “raising [of] children”. The entire focus of this charity which had a total operating income last year of $13,070,460 is on enhancing undefined “relationships”.

Midlands regional manager of Relationships Aotearoa, Ash Smart, is quoted in the Dominion Post as saying: “[Marital status] is not the issue [in raising children]. The issue is: Are they being born into strong and healthy relationships?”.

Family First NZ, another registered charity, while agreeing that strong and healthy relationships are important, puts such a statement in context – i.e. such relationships are important in the raising of children. It contends that children thrive best when raised by a loving mother AND father who are committed to each other in marriage. It recognises the excellent parental achievements of solo parents, de facto parents, and parents who adopt children, but emphasises that an input to children’s upbringing/nurture etc from both a father AND a mother (living together in a committed relationship) is the ideal environment in which to raise children.

So focused on undefined “fulfilling relationships” is the charity Relationshiops Aotearoa, that the closest and most precise statement about the $8m state-funded charitable activities of its employees is limited to the following:

Objects include:

3.1 To promote and advance the Society throughout New Zealand.

3.2 To support the people of Aotearoa/New Zealand to create fulfilling relationships by providing quality service including counselling, information and resources, and by building awareness of the importance of strong and healthy relationships.

3.3 To recognise and honour Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

3.1 To promote education for relationships throughout New Zealand.

The Dominion Post points out:

“Children needed to be in a home with love and warmth, and evidence showed having their biological parents around increased the likelihood of this.”

Family First NZ has for many years highlighted this very point, but gone much further by researching and publicising the factors that sadly lead to family breakdown and child abuse etc.

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc, (“SPCS”) has as one of its objects: “To promote wholesome personal values, including strong family life and the benefits of lasting marriage as the foundation for stable communities.” (Constitution. s. 2[c]).

SPCS points out that loving and committed relationships between spouses in marriage is fundamental to the success of Society’s “natural and fundamental unit” – THE FAMILY. Supporting and promoting stable marriages should be seen by government as beneficial to Society’s well-being and future.

New Zealand and Australia are both signatories to Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), as are all member States of the United Nations

Article 16 states:

16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have a right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

16 (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouse.

16 (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

See: www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Note: The Relationships Aoterora Inc. website “Relationships Aotearoa: counselling & educating” listed on the Charities website as:

www.relationshipsaotearoa.org.nz

…. is currently NOT functioning. Its homepage states: ‘Our website is now under construction and coming soon’

Tourism Board Wastes Taxpayer Funds On Marriage Stunt–says Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

In a media release issued on 25 June: Family First NZ a registered charity, is slamming the NZ Tourism Board for wasting taxpayer money on a stunt which is politically motivated. It also discriminates against couples who are of the opposite sex.

New Zealand’s tourism promoter is offering to fly two Australians to NZ and pay all ‘wedding’ expenses for them to become the first same-sex couple to wed under the redefinition of marriage laws, which come into effect on August 19.

“The Tourism Board is using a highly controversial law change which was rejected by more than half of NZ’ers to push a political agenda – and using taxpayer funds in the process. It is also disrespectful towards the Australian public who are currently debating the issue,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Not only is the offer discriminatory against a man and a woman who want to marry, but it fails to take in to account Australia’s marriage laws where less than a week ago, attempts to recognise gay couples who tie the knot overseas were shot down in the Australian parliament.”

“Did the Tourism Board make a similar offer to prostitutes when the decriminalisation of prostitution happened, or to students when the interest free student loans were introduced, or to families when the Working for Families package was announced?” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Tourism Board should stick to promoting the country for its scenery and tourist attractions – rather than entering in to the culture war around the definition of marriage.”

Family First will write to the Minister of Tourism expressing their concerns. They will also consider laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

ENDS

‘Same sex Marriage bill’ – now law: what it means for churches – Craig Vernall

by 1 Comment

Senior Pastor, Craig Vernall, National Leader of the NZ Baptist Union, has notified all Baptist pastors registered as marriage celebrants (on the Baptist List) with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, that they are expressly forbidden to perform civil unions and same sex marriages under Baptist Administration Manual policy (put in place by the Baptist Assembly Council). Nor can they or any other Baptist celebrant perform such ceremonies in a private capacity, because they are only authorised to their (statutory function) role as marriage celebrants, based on the Call they have to the local Baptist congregation, and having accepted that Call, they are duty-bound to uphold the policies etc. of the NZ Baptist Union (of NZ churches). Vernall has written (NZ Baptist magazine. May 2013, p. 20):

With the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passing into law in August this year it’s time for us to consider how our churches should respond to this new legislation.

During the months leading up to the Definition of Marriage Bill being passed, there have been a variety of opinions from both sides of the debate. A very small number of Baptist pastors have indicated to me that they would consider marrying a same sex couple, but admitted this didn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their congregations.

I mention this because Baptist churches maintain a unique relationship with their pastors when it comes to the pastor’s right to conduct weddings. Baptists are firstly a movement of local churches. When a Baptist church calls a pastor, that pastor then has the ability to become a Registered Baptist pastor. Being registered then qualifies the pastor to become a celebrant on the Baptist list which is held by the Government appointed Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

So the ability for a Baptist Pastor to perform a wedding is linked directly to the Call given to him or her by their local Baptist church. This means the authority to perform a wedding belongs to the church, not the pastor. The pastor fulfils this function as a ministry of the church, but not by their own authority.

In recognition of this, the Assembly Council has made adjustments to the policy schedule in the Baptist Administration Manual because we believe this reflects the will of our Baptist churches and the Bible.

The Baptist Administration Manual includes policy covering Marriage and Civil Unions. This is found within ‘The Local Church” Appendix 2-M “Policy on Marriage and Civil Unions.”

This policy precludes Baptist pastors from conducting civil unions or the use of Baptist church buildings for such a ceremony. It was the Assembly Council’s decision, at their April 2013 meeting, to update this policy to include same sex marriage alongside civil unions as a ceremony we cannot condone. The Baptist Administration Manual will reflect this decision in due course.

A number of our pastors have asked questions about their protection under the law with respect to their wish not to perform same sex marriages. It is my understanding that church ministers are not legally required to perform a same sex marriage and that this decision will  be protected in law as the legislation is finalised in the coming months.

Neither will Baptist churches have to surrender their buildings for same sex ceremonies. Our buildings are operated under our own authority. If your church congregation is worried about this it would be advisable to adopt the Baptist Administration Manual policies on Marriage and Sexuality and Marriage and Civil Unions (“The Local Church”, Appendix 2M and Appendix 2F Addendum 2) into your church’s constitution. Contact the Baptist Resource Centre for more information.

It will take some time for the dust to settle on this new law. For most of us it will be church business as usual. I’m anticipating that the first point of conflict won’t be with the churches, but with the independent marriage celebrants or court employed marriage registrars who don’t want to perform a same sex marriage for conscience reasons. They are very vulnerable under the present law and will need our support if they wish to defend their personal convictions. The Resource Centre has already been approached by a couple of civil celebrants seeking to be placed on our Baptist celebrants’ list. Unfortunately we cannot do this because the list is specifically reserved for Registered or Accredited Baptist ministers.

A second area of continued debate was highlighted by Green MP Kevin Hague who was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying he, “has drafted a private members bill which would overhaul adoption laws and remove all restrictions to adoption by same sex couples.” (NZ Herald 20th April). The New Zealand public may have something to say about this as the change will deny the rights of a child, in law, to have both a mother and a father.

During the course of the debate, a number of our pastors made the suggestions that Baptists could simply opt out of the marriage celebrant system. That is, hand back our marriage celebrant’s licences to the state. This would leave the state to conduct the legal part of a marriage ceremony and the church would then conduct the wedding as a purely Christian covenant.

This is common practice throughout much of Europe and Central America. It provides a very attractive civil strategy for those of us who are deeply disappointed in our democracy. The Assembly Council discussed this option, but felt that by doing this we Baptists would simply remove ourselves from any future debate around the subject.

On ANZAC Day I joined thousands of other New Zealanders to commemorate and remember the price paid for our democratic freedoms. As I reflect upon what our democracy has given us over the past 150 years I would prefer to ask forgiveness from the men and women who laid down their lives for our democracy.

Is our society a better place since we passed laws such as lowering the drinking age to 18, legalised casinos, decriminalised prostitution and now allowed for same sex marriage? It’s difficult not to sound like some moralising old wowser, but when I saw the results of a text poll carried out by TV’s Campbell Live revealing that 78% of New Zealanders were against same sex marriage, I feel I’m not alone. I don’t think this latest change in the nature and status of marriage was God’s will for our country, and I’m quietly confident that many of those ANZACS who are fallen and now silent would agree with me.

Source

Marriage bill: what it means for churches

NZ Baptist Vol, 129 No.4. 1 May 2013, p. 20.

Craig Vernall is senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Note:

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has been widely referred to in the media as the ‘Same sex marriage bill’.

 

Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome and “gay” blood donor ‘rights’

by Leave a Comment

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,’ according to Australian Red Cross Blood Services, one of the safest blood services in the world. Because of HIV/AIDS risks, the blood service excludes donors who have had “male-to-male sex” within the preceding 12 months. Nor will it take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.

However, Rodney Croome, “arguably Australia’s leading homosexual rights activist”, has vehemently opposed these policies and accused Red Cross of “homophobia” for its “anti-gay blood policies” – accusing it of denying active homosexual men their “human rights” to be donors. He is currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, serves as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group,  and is one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality.

Croome therefore contends that it is the human “right” of every homosexual man who is having regular anal sex, with or without a condom with another man, his partner and/or any other male, to be a blood donor. He claims that Red Cross’s refusal to allow men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate their blood, contravenes anti-discrimination legislation passed in Tasmania in 1998.

When The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Australian Society for HIV Medicine and AIDS Council of New South Wales ran a joint advertisement in homosexual media, supporting the Red Cross stance, based on known HIV/AIDS health risks involving MSM, Croome publicy accused them all of being “Red Cross glove puppets.”

“Do [the three groups] care more about gay men being unfairly stigmatized as lepers, or their own standing with government and the corporate health sector?” he asked.

In Australia, the three bodies stated, those who have male-to-male sex “are the group most likely to have HIV.”

Noting that 80 percent of Australians receive blood at some stage during their lifetime, they said “all people have a right to uncompromised blood supplies and that means screening donors and blood to make sure it is safe.”

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,‘ ” they added.

Croome, who vehemently condemns all who would dare to oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage as homophobic bigots, is demanding that the Australian federal government legalise same-sex marriage. He uses the same flawed “human rights” and “discriminisation”/victim ‘arguments’ he uses in the “gay blood donor” controversy to now push for “gay-‘marriage’.

In the U.S., the American Red Cross says prospective donors “should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.”

“You are at risk for getting infected if you … are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977,” it says.

This does NOT constitute discrimination against homosexual men (MSM). Rather it is making choices based on known and well-documented risks.

By the government pandering to the so-called claimed “rights” of  homosexuals and any other high risk categories to be donors, the rights of the general public to be protected from harm is compromised or negated. Likewise, pandering to a tiny LGBT minority who demand the “right” to legal marriage, the rights of heterosexual couples already in committed traditional marriages are compromised.

To change the definition of “marriage” by parliamentary fiat to include same-sex couples is to make the concept of marriage utterly meaningless. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron, a contrived nonsense. Once SSM is fused with traditional marriage the ‘hybrid’ created no longer possesses the unique and defining qualities embodied in the original (traditional) term.

In Britain, men who have had sex with men are permanently banned from donating blood.

Spokesperson for the Australian Red Cross Kathy Bowlen told AAP in 2012 that the current rules around blood donation were not discriminatory. ‘It’s never been found to be discriminatory because we’re required to rule people out on the basis of risk,’ she said.

MSM wishing to be donors are excluded based on their sexual activities (behaviour) linked to known inherent health risk, rather than based on sexual orientation per se.

Bowlen said an earlier study showed that a quarter of blood donors between 2005 and 2010 whose blood contained transmissible infections had not been open about information that would have barred them from donating. She said providing accurate information was very important as blood screening does not pick up infections in their early stages.

CNN.com reports in July 2012

Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the [HIV] virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. [Emphasis added]

If differing behaviour is a valid basis for justified discrimination in law, as it is, then traditional marriage warrants formal recognition in name and status, distinct from any other deviation – e.g. polygamous ‘marriage’, same sex ‘marriage’ etc. Traditional marriage differs from a behavioural perspective from all same-sex ‘marriages’ as it involves the exclusive complementarity of both sexes forming the unique union. Futhermore, it differs qualitatively from SSM in that it is oriented towards procreation while SSM is always a sterile union biologically.

References:

Dispute over blood donations divides homosexuals in Australia

Thursday November 17, 2005

http://www.crosswalk.com/1363955/

Review of blood donation discrimination does not go far enough

[Note the implicit bias in this “gay” news headline] 

24 May 2012. Anna Leach

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/review-blood-donation-discrimination-does-not-go-far-enough240512

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

By Jen Christensen, CNN

July 7, 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban