SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

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)). 

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

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).

Smartphone application linked to gay syphilis epidemic according to Sexual Health Clinic senior clinician

by Leave a Comment

A new smartphone application is fanning a syphilis epidemic outbreak among Canterbury’s young gay men, a doctor says.

Christchurch Sexual Health Clinic senior clinician Heather Young said gay men would usually contract syphilis after meeting at venues such as clubs, saunas or brothels but this year there had been an increase in men meeting electronically.

“In 2011, sex-on-site venues were associated with 50 per cent of syphilis cases but in 2012 it is more commonly found after use of internet dating sites or the Grindr app,” she said.

Grindr is a free social networking app for gay men. The app uses GPS to notify members when there is another gay man nearby.

Young said gay men needed to be aware of the outbreak and should “take responsibility” by ensuring they were tested.

“People think syphilis is an old infection that is not associated with the modern day but it is re-emerging globally,” she said.

Christchurch homosexual Dixie McGregor said Grindr was “the new and popular” way to meet other gay men.

McGregor, who does not have the app, did not think it was responsible for the rise in syphilis cases: “It’s just the new thing at the moment but no matter how you meet someone it’s still up to the individual to make sure they are having safe sex.”

Canterbury District Health Board clinical director of sexual health Ed Coughlan said the syphilis epidemic had got worse in recent months.

“It’s difficult to say why it’s increased recently but once it’s in the community, among the men who have sex with men population, it’s just very infectious, so it’s just spreading.”

He said the average age of people contracting the sexually transmitted disease had dropped from 46 to 24, with men as young as 19 being affected.

Coughlan said there were eight reported cases in 2011. So far this year there had been 22.

“If it carries on this way we’ll be looking at a fourfold increase and that’s quite concerning,” he said.

“Some people have reported having female sexual partners, so of course that poses another risk but this year it has been only men who have been affected in Canterbury.”

An Environmental Science and Research report showed there was 83 syphilis cases reported last year in New Zealand.

SYPHILIS FACTS

The disease is passed through direct contact with a syphilis sore.

Early-stage symptoms include mouth and genital ulcers, hair loss and rashes.

In its early stages, the disease is easily treated with a penicillin injection.

Late stages of the disease can cause paralysis, blindness, dementia or premature death.

Source: Phone app link to gay syphilis epidemic

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7545561/Phone-app-link-to-gay-syphilis-epidemic

Note:  Section 2(d) of the SPCS Constitution “Objects” commences:

“To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity …….” [Emphasis added]

“Change the marriage law and they will return” – Stephen Rainbow – Board member NZ Aids Foundation

by Leave a Comment

NZ Herald: Gay equality could draw home expats and boost economy, writes Dr Stephen Rainbow, chairman of the board of Outline, a gay counselling service, and board member of the Aids Foundation [a charity registered with the Charities Commission on 28 March 2008 – Reg. No. CC22230]

At a time when New Zealand is losing 1000 people a week to the rich pickings of Western Australia, has anyone thought that legalising gay marriage might be one way of attracting people back?

Researchers have often observed the disproportionate number of gay Kiwis living in Australia’s cities. The reasons they have gone there are fairly obvious and are to do with the larger pool of potential “mates”, a result of the size of the gay populations and the resulting facilities and infrastructure in places such as Sydney and Melbourne. But these Kiwis are among the very people this country most needs as we struggle to build a prosperous economy.

While we know far too little about gay people (at least Australia, unlike New Zealand, has a question on sexual orientation in its Census) it would be a fair assumption that the gay Kiwis living in Australia would be the kind of people who could bring back with them the creativity and ingenuity our economy needs.

An economist friend remarked recently that the future of New Zealand’s primary sector lies in Auckland. He was referring to the fact that the ideas for turning agricultural produce into value-added products for export will come from the hot-house of ideas and innovation that are largely concentrated in Auckland’s CBD. It is no coincidence that the head office of Fonterra is in downtown Auckland.

Now, given that Australia’s Labor Prime Minister is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and that our Prime Minister made clear on RadioLive yesterday that he will vote for it, can we not turn this into a competitive advantage for New Zealand?

The recent Australian Census revealed more than 30,000 same-sex relationships. Chances are a reasonable percentage of them are Kiwis. If these people have the potential to contribute creativity and innovationto our economy, then attracting them back through measures such as legalising same sex marriage is not just as the right thing to do, but could boost our struggling economy.

Legalising gay marriage not only permits the act itself, it also sends out a strong signal that gays are valued and equal members of society.

Central government legislative changes would reflect the Auckland Plan (and let’s face it, Auckland is where most gays are and where most returning gays would want to live) which explicitly acknowledges gay people as an important part of Auckland’s diversity.

This is critical because international cities guru Richard Florida describes gays as “the canaries in the mine” of the creative economy that successful global cities depend on for their prosperity and success.

From this perspective it makes sense to attract gay people to Auckland – including from the gay Kiwi diaspora in Australia – as one of the ways to build the world’s most liveable (and prosperous) city.

Attracting gays back to New Zealand by removing the final impediments to full equality – the right to marry and to adopt – then becomes one of the planks for developing our economy. Apart from being the right thing to do, it also ensures that the law keeps up with what is already happening. For removing the legal impediments to gay equality are not necessarily about promoting gay marriage or adoption but ensuring that the choices – to adopt, for example – that gay couples are already making are recognised by the law.

Attracting gay Kiwis back from Australia may not replace the 1000 people a week leaving for West Australia, but it may attract back a critical mass of talented Kiwis who – as gay people generally do – make a disproportionate contribution to the places where they live.

Source: NZ Herald 31 July 2012. Change the marriage law and they will return. By Stephen Rainbow

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10823298