SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

TV3 Campbell Live ‘Marriage-Equality bill’ poll: 78% opposed to bill (17,000 responses)

by 4 Comments

Last night (17 April) TV3 Campbell Live ran a poll on Louisa Wall’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill (the so-called ‘Marriage-Equality bill’)  and there were “nearly 17,000” respondents (by text) to the question: “Do you support the ‘Marriage-Equality bill’?” – YES or NO.

TV3 host John Campbell announced the results at the end of the programme: 78% opposed to bill (“NO”) and only 22% supported it (“YES”). Campbell stated that he believed this was the second largest number of responses ever received to a TV3 poll.

In Parliament last night the Bill was supported at its Third Reading by a majority of MPs: 77 in favour: 43 opposed. This result is a total reversal of the TV3 poll results and shows that opponents of the bill are right in demanding a referendum on this issue.

Why has there been a media blackout on this TV3 poll result that suggests that the majority of MPs may have misjudged the strength of public opinion against this bill?

Same-sex marriage. “Openly lesbian” Labour MP Louisa Wall in a civil union, has no marriage plans

by Leave a Comment

Ms Louisa Wall, the “openly lesbian” 41-year old Manurewa Labour MP who is “the architect of the most significant change to New Zealand marriage law”, is reported in the NZ Herald today to have “an admission to make – she has no plans to get married”. She is currently in a civil union which could be ‘upgraded’ to a ‘marriage’ if her bill is passed, but she is not interested in doing so.

Her private members bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – was selected from the ballot and introduced to parliament on 26 July 2012 and is expected to be voted into law at its Third Reading in parliament tonight. It amends the Marriage Act 1955 to legalise same-sex ‘marriage’.

In an interview published in Womens Weekly earlier this year, Louisa Wall said she has been in a civil union since 2011 with partner Prue Tamatekapua (Prue Kapua), a mother-of-two and a lawyer specialising in Treaty of Waitangi issues, whom she met in 2007.  They had their civil union ceremony at Te Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier, Auckland, where 200 guests helped celebrate their union in 2010.

Louisa told the NZ Herald:

“For Prue and I the most important thing when we wanted to formalise our relationship was to have our parents there. Having a Civil Union satisfied us.”

She added: “That was the only choice we had. If the law does change, and we can marry, then we will be able to have a conversation about that.”

The new bill will mean that couples in a civil union can simply ­fill in a form to change their status to that of a married couple. But Louisa and Prue aren’t going down that route, she told Womens Weekly.

While comfortable with her own personal situation, Louisa believes it’s vitally important for individuals and couples to have options.

Opponents of her bill have every reason to question her motivation and integrity in promoting her bill given that she and her LGBT (lesbian, “gay”, bisexual and transsexual) supporters have been pushing for “gay marriage” based on claims that civil unions are largely “meaningless” for their community and they need “marriage” instead to be truly happy, fulfilled and able to jointly adopt children. If so, why has the “champion” of this bill shown so little interest in getting married even though her lesbian partner has two children?

When did Louisa Wall conclude that she was a lesbian?

She said she had been too distracted by netball at high school – she was New Zealand’s youngest-ever Silver Fern – to question her sexuality, but began to feel she might be “gay” at age 19.

When she was 21, Ms Wall found a partner and came out to her parents.

“I’ve never not been out,” she told Womens Weekly. “I think I realised I was gay in my late teens and from then on I’ve had female partners. “For me, it’s always been a part of who I am, so I’ve never felt a need not to share that.”

[If it’s true that she’s “never not been out” then how come she only discovered she might be a lesbian at the age of 19? The two statements are incompatible]

After she “drifted apart” from her partner of 10 years, she met Prue while working at the Waiatarau Branch of the Maori Women’s Welfare League.

Womens Weekly reported:

“Now, with Prue at her side and achieving recognition as one of Parliament’s youngest MPs, there is only one thing missing in Louisa’s life – a baby. While she would love to be a mother and has tried to conceive in the past, her efforts have been unsuccessful.”

What is far clearer is that Louisa Wall and her supporters have failed to convince the majority of New Zealanders that there is any good reason that the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Over half the country oppose her bill. It is  clear that Louisa Wall’s bill has split the country and a lesbian woman who has no interest in marriage herself is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to undermine an institution that has served the public good well. Not only does the bill make a mockery of the terms “husband” and “wife” and “marriage”, but it is an attack on the natural and normal sexuality that is engaged in by those joined in the traditional marriage bond. New Zealanders are being sold the lie via state legislation that heterosexual sex within marriage is equal or equivalent to the forms of sexual expression engaged in by homosexuals.  

References:

Gay marriage: Wall has no marriage plans. By Isaac Davison

April 17, 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877993

Labour MP Louisa Wall: Fighting for our rights. By Vicky Tyler

New Zealand’s Women’s Weekly. 28th March 2013

http://www.nzwomansweekly.co.nz/celebrity/labour-mp-louisa-wall-fighting-for-our-rights/

Meet “your” gay and lesbian MPs
By GayNZ.com Daily News staff
28th November 2011

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/33/printer_11118.php

Man-brides boogie to Beyonce in support of “gay” ‘marriage’ – TV3 News

by Leave a Comment

 

A group of 10 men flaunting wedding gowns paraded through the capital this afternoon, ahead of tonight’s final reading of the same-sex marriage bill.

The male brides were joined by their female counterparts who performed a rendition of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ at Midland Park in front of lunching Wellington workers.

A bouquet was thrown, confetti was sprinkled and kisses were shared at the demonstration.

The group are supporting Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill, which passed its first reading last year. MPs will vote on it for the final time tonight.

The male brides will join hundreds of others expected to rally outside Parliament in support of the bill at 10pm.

3 News

http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-brides-boogie-to-Beyonce/tabid/309/articleID/294607/Default.aspx

Poll: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?” – NZ Herald’s loaded ‘question’

by Leave a Comment

Today the NZ Herald is running a ‘poll’ on the ‘same-sex marriage’ bill based on the loaded question: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?”

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

The background article presents the case for the bill (“Yes”) put by Sam Clements, followed by the case against (“No”) by Professor of Law from Otago University, Rex Ahdar.

Sam Clements begins his case (quoted in italics) by stating:

It is logically flawed, and a nonsensical argument to suggest the redefinition of marriage by the state is in effect an attempt “‘to abolish it”. How absolutist and sweeping a statement.

Response from SPCS

Mr Clements has failed to distinguish between the effect of an action by a person or agent and their intention. They are two quite distinct matters. Likewise he fails to appreciate that the effect (consequence) of any action may be intended or unintended. His simplistic comments overlooks these matters. Clement’s accusatory sweeping and simplistic statement is itself logically flawed.

Traditional (conjugal) marriage is universally recognised as an honourable institution and highly beneficial to society. If its universally accepted meaning as involving one man and one woman is degraded, altered, negated, or compromised by tampering with its definition, for whatever reason, this will undoubtedly have a negative social/societal impact, in particular in relation to the welfare of children.

It is not logically flawed to claim that the effect of legalising same-sex ‘marriage’   (SSM) could or will lead to the ‘abolition’ of the true meaning of the term “marriage”. It is quite another matter to assert that the state is deliberately attempting to do this. Many of those opposed to the bill do see it as an attack on religious freedom and the institution of marriage, given that it renders the concept “marriage” meaningless. Why? Because expanding it to include SSM degrades it as SSM is an oxymoron.

Many homosexual activists pushing for the bill have publicly stated that civil unions are “meaningless” even though they campaigned so passionately for them in 2002 to 2004. What utter hypocrisy!  Just nine years ago homoxsexuals were dancing in the streets applauding the passage of the Civil Union Bill into law, now they say it is largely irrelevant after having got on their knees before the select committee to plead with them to accept their claim that civil unions are so meaningfull to their communities.

Sam Clements continues:

This bill seeks to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry, and in so doing bring formal societal recognition to their committed and loving relationships, which are no different to those of heterosexual couples.

Comment from SPCS

The so-called “equity” argument he uses is deficient. Of course all persons have the human right to love (within lawful bounds) whom they will. A woman school teacher can fall in love with her 14 year-old female student and the feeling may be mutual, but that does not entitle her to lawfully have sexual relations with her student, let alone ‘marry’ her. Loving relationships expressed intimately within the marriage bond are fundamentally different to ‘loving’ (commercial) relationships expressed between a man a prostitute even if she happens to have a deep affection and love for him.

Conjugal traditional marriage is not equal to same-sex marriage. The first involves the complementarity of the two sexes – physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually which SSM does not. It also has a biological orientation towards procreation which SSM does not. No amount of sexual activity between members of a same-sex couple will ever result in a child. Those in traditional who chose to adopt a child, often when they cannot have their own, can offer that child a mother’s and father’s love. A homosexual couple cannot.

Sam Clements continues:

Some appear fixated with the idea that “sexual union” is only truly possible from a marital perspective when it is between a man and a woman.

In essence, placing the ability to procreate as emblematic proof of this. This is one of the sadder and more naive statements often raised by opponents of the bill.

Response from SPCS

Clements: In a condescending tone Clements describes the bill’s opponents as sad cases who are naive.

For from it. Opponents of the bill actually understand the true nature of traditional marriage and why it must be differentiated from SSM (as noted above), while bill supporters ignore them.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

Sam Clements holds graduate degrees in arts and commerce from the University of Auckland. He is a lifetime inducted member of international honour society Beta Gamma Sigma. samclements9@gmail.com

To view a decisive rebuttal of Clement’s position read Rex Ahdar’s view below Clement’s.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696