SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Maurice Williamson MP: “Our own little gay icon” who voted against civil unions

by Leave a Comment

Political Report by Barry Soper (NewstalkZB) on “Motormouth Maurice Williamson” who voted against Civil Unions.

It was with a distinct lisp that John Key giggled about “our own little gay icon.”

The State Homie was of course talking about Motormouth Maurice Williamson who after years in the wilderness made an off the cuff speech about gay marriage and sealed his place the the annals of gay history.

maurice williamson

Maurice Williamson

His four minute rant went viral with around a million hits on u Tube and he’s been boasting about how many have been listening to his dulcet tones saying he thought nothing more about it after taking his seat.

The speech itself obviously wasn’t up there with the “I Have A Dream” tub thumping oratory but the occasion itself was pretty special, giving same sex couples the right to marry. That’s why the gay community worldwide have been tuning in and it’s even come to the attention of lesbian telly talk host Ellen DeGeneres who’s invited The Motormouth to come on her show.

She’ll pick up the tab and even give him appearance money, which he’ll donate to a worthy cause just as The Home did when he looked goofy on the David Letterman Show a few years back.

But unlike Key, Williamson didn’t even have to lobby to get on the American show which his boss is happy for him to appear on if he can paint God’s Own as a liberal little country. His Minister, he says, has voted liberal on most issues, he was aware of, and seemed a little surprised when he was told that he actually voted against civil unions!

And given what he said last week it’s hard to see how he opposed the unions eight years ago when he didn’t even bother to take part in the debate.

Last week he told the grizzlies in Parliament’s bear pit that he couldn’t understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage and he railed against the bullies who tried to make him change his mind.

Motormouth Maurice declared that all they were doing in Parliament last week was allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage.

How that gels with his opposition to civil unions is beyond most liberals.

Maybe the Beehive water tanks, or its air conditioning system, should be checked because some of the inhabitants are clearly suffering from the same affliction – memory fade!

Source: NewstalkZB Political Report. Tuesday 23 April 2013

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/opinion/political-report-23apr2013

Maurice Williamson MP: ‘Gay Icon’ must answer to a Higher Being

by Leave a Comment

Dominion Post Letter to Editor (24 April) accompanied by colour photo of ‘Gay Icon’ Maurice Williamson delivering pro-same-sex marriage [Marriage Amendment bill] speech on 17 April 2013. In 2004, he voted against civil unions at the Third Reading of the Civil Union Act, along with John Key and 22 other Nation Party MPs.

maurice williamson

National Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson’s marriage-amendment bill speech would have been half funny were it not for the assumptions he made as facts. He promised that the Sun would rise tomorrow, we’d not suffer skin diseases or plagues of toads, and that the world would carry on. His knowledge of physics assures us eternal punishment will last 2.1 seconds. His major error is to ignore that he’s answerable to a higher authority. It’s an error shared by the bill’s supporters, including some churches and their leaders. Though he and this Government might act as if they govern the universe, the Bible is clear that they will be called to account for their lives. Pussyfooting around, with platitudes about loving relationships and Jesus’ acceptance of everyone, ignores that, faced with an adulterous woman, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” – the later instruction being the condition placed on the forgiveness. The Church must be aware that after 30 years of “normalising ” homosexuality, the future demand will be to marry same-sex people in church because it would be “discriminatory” not to do so. What then, sheep?

Peter Bradley, Aotea.

24 April 2013. The Dominion Post. P. A10.

SPCS written submission on the Marriage Amendment Bill

by Leave a Comment

Submission on The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to

Government Administration Committee

by

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

Conclusion reads:

Parliament has no authority to redefine marriage and should not presume to engineer changes to a natural institution that constitutes the very fabric of society. Marriage is foundational to understanding and expressing the true nature of our humanity comprising the complementarity of the sexes in true union and the procreation of new life issued from that true union. Same-sex couples have the freedom to form meaningful and legally recognised relationships under the Civil Union Act. The concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage by definition involves a man and a woman and its unique and distinctive quality must be preserved, protected and promoted by the State. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill should be rejected. The explanations provided in the Bill for amending the principal Act are legally flawed. Amendments to the Civil Union Act rather than the Marriage Act should be the means by which the GLBT community address their issues of inequality, denial of “rights” and claimed discrimination etc.

The full text is below, or you can access the PDF version (128kB) here.

[Read more…]

The Clear Agenda of Same-Sex “Marriage” (SSM) Lobbyists

by Leave a Comment

The push for the State sanctioning (legalisation) of same-sex “marriage” (SSM) has followed on from the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act on 9 July 1986.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act was introduced to the New Zealand parliament by Labour MP Fran Wilde in 1985. It legalised consensual sex between men aged 16 and older. It removed the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 that criminalised this behaviour.

The case – Quilter v Attorney-General [1998] had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples (lesbians) in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The High Court decision rejecting the lesbians’ case of alleged discrimination and inequality, was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand’s highest court) in December 1997. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling.

Dissatisfied with this the SSM lobbyists pursued their grievances of alleged “discrimination” to the United Nations. On 30 November 1998, two couples involved in Quilter case took their case to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, claiming that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee rejected it on 17 July 2002.

Again dissatisfied, SSM lobbyists withdrew from all Court action to pursue their goals of SSM “rights” under a different name (“civil union”) via legislative change. On 9 December 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Civil Union Act came into effect on 26 April 2005 and the vast majority of the homosexual community applauded it for removing alleged “discrimination” and “inequality”.

However, soon they became dissatisfied with Civil Unions with SSM lobbyists alleging that they were still discriminated against because they could still not obtain a marriage licence. Their clear agenda was to achieve SSM by using parliament to introduce into the Marriage Act a definition of marriage that did not limit it to a male-female union but widened it to include same-sex unions.

In August 2012, Louisa Wall – an openly lesbian Labour MP – spoke in parliament in support of her private member’s bill at First Reading – The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill –  currently being considered by the Government Administration Committee.  It removes all gender specific language from Schedule 2 (“Forbidden Marriages”) of the Marriage Act, but retains the terms “legal wife” and “legal husband” in s. 31 dealing with marriage vows taken before a marriage celebrant. It is due to be reported back to parliament from the committee on 28 February 2013.

SUMMARY: The Clear Agenda of the Homosexual SSM Lobbyists:      

(What’s Next? !)

First: To ensure that same-sex couples can legally obtain a marriage licence and that homosexual men and lesbian women in such relationships can legally refer to their same-sex partner  by the appellation “legal husband” and “legal wife”.

Second: Once parliament has legally sanctioned the oxymoron “same-sex marriage” and legally validated these oxymoronic appelations, such as “legal wife” – to apply to SSM; SSM Lobbyists believe they will have the same “rights” as a heterosexual couples to jointly adopt children because the new law will treat them as “spouses”. At present The Adoption Act 1955 only allows for an adoption order to be applied for by “2 spouses jointly in respect of a child” or “by the mother or father of the child, either alone or jointly with his or her spouse”. In effect the SSM Lobby want to short-circuit due process (proper consideration of changes to Adoption Laws and the rights of adopted children to have a father (male) and mother (female)). 

NZ resident couples overwhelmingly prefer marriage to civil union

by Leave a Comment

There were 20,900 marriages in New Zealand last year, compared to 338 civil unions.

According to Statistics New Zealand, 273 Kiwi couples legalised their relationship in a civil union, of which 73 per cent [199] were same-sex. A further 65 civil unions were registeted to overseas residents.

The 199 same-sex civil unions entered into by Kiwi couples resident in New Zealand in 2010 constitutes 0.9% of the total unions (marriages + civil unions) entered into by NZ resident Kiwi couples in 2010.

Since the Civil Union Act came into force six years ago, and taking account of the growth in New Zealand population each year, the number of civil unions has progressively dropped each year from a high of 430 in 2006.

At the current rate of decline of civil unions entered into each year and the rate of dissolution of such relations, one wonders how long this ‘institution’ will go the way of the dinosaurs – a mysterious extinction that will catch us all by surprise.