SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Louisa Wall: Same-sex “marriage”, Nero and bestiality

by Leave a Comment

Louisa Wall highlighted the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, in her First Reading speech (ref. 1) in parliament in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. She put forward the erroneous argument that because “the civil and social institution of marriage” had [allegedly] “changed dramatically” over the period “pre-dat[ing] government and Christianity” and leading up to the present-day, as illustrated by the legalisation of homosexual marriage in Rome in the time of Nero, New Zealand MPs should therefore support her bill and embrace homosexual marriage.  Then she made the claim that for opponents of her bill to “even raise such concerns” as “polygamy, bigamy, bestiality and incest … within the context of discussion about marriage equality” [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] was “insulting” to her and those championing her bill, because such practices constituted “criminal offences” under current NZ law.

One MP who voted in support of her bill at its first and second readings was National MP the Hon. Maurice Williamson.  Never one to be outdone in espousing a libertarian argument he said, “I don’t care if someone wants to marry their dog as long as they don’t do it on the front lawn” (ref. 2). Such flippancy from a bill supporter – involving an ‘argument’ based on reductio ad absurdum – and relying on the ‘linking’ of homosexual sex/”marriage” with bestiality – is illustrative of the libertarian attitude of a number of other MPs supporting the bill. For them, limiting marriage to one man and one woman makes little sense, adults should be entitled in their view to form whatever intimate relationships they want involving sexual activity, and have them recognised in law.

Some MPs opposing the bill have highlighted polygamy, bigamy etc, just as Williamson has done with bestiality, not to be flippant like him, but rather to seek to raise the serious and genuine question as to where a line should be drawn, if at all, to limit the definition of marriage. Williamson just doesn’t seem to care where the line should be drawn, as long as consenting adults confine their activities to the privacy of their own homes. Such an attitude disregards, or at best makes light of serious considerations of the relationship between adults and their offspring and/or adoptive children. It also takes no account of public health issues around sexual promiscuity and/or unsafe sex practices.

For opponents of the bill, who do care, the line starts and finishes with the one man – one woman definition of marriage. There are clearly no reasonable grounds for claiming that their references to bigamy and polygamy in the course of advancing their case against the bill, are “insulting” as Louisa Wall claims. Wall’s supporters regularly vilify the  bill’s opponents as “homophobes”, “gay-bashers” and “gay-haters”. Then employing the “victim – mentality syndrome” seek to shut down all legitimate debate over the bill, by claiming that opponents are “insulting” them, when in fact the latter are involved in legitimate debate involving reasoned arguments.

Over 70 MPs have now been persuaded by the types of banal and perverse arguments Louisa Wall has used (above) to support her bill that if passed would bring New Zealand into line with homosexual ‘marriage’ practices legalised under Nero in Rome.

References:

Ref. 1. Hansard Record. Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading. Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Speech by Louisa Wall (Labour—Manurewa). Volume: 683; Page:4913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.

Ref. 2  Same-sex union debate no marriage made in heaven. By Dan Dolejs

Nelson Mail. 25 March 2013.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/opinion/8468573/Same-sex-union-debate-no-marriage-made-in-heaven

 

 

Appeal Court backs liquidators’ power to claw back payments made by an insolvent company

by Leave a Comment

The Court of Appeal has backed liquidators’ power to claw back payments made by an insolvent company up to two years before its collapse.

Three High Court decisions last year undid a commonly held belief about voidable transactions, where a liquidator can order a creditor to repay money received from a troubled firm.

The voidable transaction process is designed to prevent creditor queue jumping. A creditor can defend against a claim if it can prove it acted in good faith in accepting the payment, had no reason to suspect the business it was trading with was in trouble and gave value for the funds received.

The High Court ruled a creditor should not be disadvantaged just because it provided its services before being paid, as many suppliers did.

The High Court decisions meant voidable transactions would be virtually unenforceable and so appeals were lodged.

Source: Fairfax NZ

Maria Slade. Business Day 30 March 2013. www.stuff.co.nz

For further details see:

Interim Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 27 March 2013.

Farrell and Rogan as Liquidators of Contact Engineering Ltd v. Fences & Kerbs Limited

CA 773/2012 [2013] NZCA 91

Given  by P. Randerson J.

Hearing date 7 February 2013

O’Regan, P. Randerson, and French JJ

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/front-page/cases/farrell-and-rogan-as-liquidators-of-contact-engineering-limited-v-fences-kerbs-limited

Same-sex “Marriage”: The Roman Emperors

by 2 Comments

Craig Turner fitzgerald griffin foundation 25 March 2013

As the Supreme Court takes up two cases regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” Americans may be surprised to learn that same-sex marriage was legalized once before.

The practice of homosexuality in the Roman Empire had increased during the early years until the Romans accepted and adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (fornication with boys ages 12 to 18). Though at first the acts were considered acceptable only if the boy was a slave, the Romans eventually extended their tolerance of homosexual acts to adult men, both free and slave. Same-sex marriage, once unthinkable, was not far behind.

Early Roman poets and critics wrote about the practice, from Juvenal’s satire that mentions Gracchus, who “arrayed himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” to Martial, a first-century poet who observed that homosexual marriage was not uncommon in the empire during the first century. Both Juvenal and Martial gave us accounts of men who “played the bride” in wedding ceremonies, wearing bridal veils like women.

But our most detailed images of homosexual marriages come from the descriptions of Roman emperors. Nero [b. 15 December 37 d. 9 June 68), Roman Empire from 54 to 68] a depraved first-century emperor, married at least two men. He wed Pythagoras in a formal same-sex wedding by first putting on a bridal veil that made Nero the “bride” and Pythagoras the “groom.” Every symbol of a classical marriage was present at this ceremony: a dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses. Tacitus, the great Roman historian who records the event, even alludes to the fact that Nero engaged in coitus with the man in front of all the guests, stating that “everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night.”

” During his reign he captured Christians and, after fixing them to stakes, burned them in his garden at night for a source of light. He is known for numerous brutal executions, including that of his own mother. He committed suicide in June of 68.

Another emperor who “married” men was Elagabalus, who ascended the throne in A.D. 218 after a substantial bribe was offered by his powerful grandmother.

He married a total of five women. The second marriage was consummated after he had his bride’s previous husband executed. His desires for his wives, however, were muted in comparison with his liking for men and boys. Elagabalus himself preferred to be the woman in the relationship, having the hairs plucked from his body to simulate femininity while at the same time wearing a wig and applying makeup. He is reputed to have offered his physician large sums of money if the doctor could change him into a woman.

The emperor’s first “husband” was a blond slave named Hierocles. Elagabalus was described as being “delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles.” In addition to playing sado-masochistic games with Hierocles, Elagabalus pretended to be a prostitute out in public, offering himself naked to random pedestrians in the palace or prostituting himself in the brothels and taverns of Rome.

The Augustan History states, “He set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voiced he solicited passers-by.”

Another of his “husbands” was Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna whom he “married” in a lavish and public display in Rome. Many Roman citizens, whose senses had been dulled by years of the lewd and immoral acts of its leaders, cheered and celebrated the new union.

Elagabalus’s grandmother convinced him to adopt a boy named Alexianus, whom Elagabalus then crowned as the new Caesar and Emperor of the empire, only to try to assassinate him later.Same-sex marriage was outlawed a century later by the historic passage of the Theodosian Code.

Source: http://www.fgfbooks.com/Turner-Craig/2013/Turner130323.html

SPCS Note: The decline of the Roman Empire, seen in retrospect, occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating in the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

In 342, the sons of Constantine, Constans and Constantius II, pass a law read variously by historians as outlawing homosexual prostitution, homosexual marriage, and homosexual activity altogether.

This law specifically outlawed marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

High Court looks at ‘shadow directors’, ‘de facto directors’ and reckless trading

by Leave a Comment

Shadow directors, de facto directors and duties not to trade recklessly

A recent decision of the High Court, Delegat v Norman [2012] NZHC 2358 provides a useful illustration of the application of the following Companies Act 1993 provisions:

  • when a person will be deemed to be the director of a company as either a ‘shadow director’ or a ‘de facto director’ under section 126 of the Act; and
  • when a director will be in breach of the duties relating to reckless trading and incurring obligations under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, or be in breach of the duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company (under section 131) or the duty to exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonable director (under section 137), particularly where a company is of doubtful solvency.
  • For analysis see Company Law in the Courts – Issue No. 19 of Corporate Reporter, Bell Gully’s regular round-up of corporate and general commercial matters (27 March 2013)
  • http://www.bellgully.co.nz/newsletters/corporate_reporter/27mar13.asp

‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on children under Adoption laws

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 26 March 2013

Petition to Attorney-General: Re ‘Same-sex marriage’ bill and its negative impact on Adoption Act 1955

The Society (SPCS) has sent a petition to the A-G, the Hon. Chris Finlayson, calling on him to fulfil his legal duty under s. 7 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) to inform parliament that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill is in breach of BORA with respect to not only its “Consequential Amendments” relating to the Adoption Act 1955, and its removal of the terms “husband” and “wife” from at least 14 Acts of parliament – both replaced by a new definition of “spouse” (to include SSM couples); – but also in its amendment of the Marriage Act 1955 to allow same-sex couples to be granted marriage certificates.

SPCS contends that same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron and that the A-G must inform parliament that it is not authorised to enact meaningless legislation. The bill, if passed, would authorise the state for the first time to grant special “rights” to same-sex couples once they are labelled “spouses” under SSM, to both legally a adopt a child and become its adoptive parents; whether that child is unrelated biologically to both adults, or biologically related to just one of them. By law both homosexual’s names would have to be recorded on the Adoption Order. Of course heterosexual married couples under current law can adopt in parallel situations and this serves the public good and the child’s best interests – to have both a mother and father.

For the state to grant to two homosexuals in a SSM the right to adopt a boy or girl, and for both to be designated in law as his/her “parents” (to the exclusion of his/her birth mother), is not in the best interests of the child and is in breach of BOR. It denies the inherent right of the child to have (ideally) both a mother and a father.

A birth mother ‘Louisa’, for example, in such cases could be acting as a commercial surrogate for two married homosexual men, ‘Chis’ and ‘Peter’, neither of whom provide sperm material, and she may well be in a formal lesbian relationship (civil union or marriage) or an informal one (de facto). Sperm could be provided by another homosexual man ‘Tim’, known to ‘Chris’ and ‘Peter’ and ‘Louisa’ from among the wider so-called “Rainbow Community”.

For the purpose of the Birth Certificate Louisa’s name is required by law to be entered as the child’s mother and any female partner she has must be entered as the other “parent” too. At the point an Adoption Oder is granted to Chris and Peter, both these homosexual men would become the “adoptive parents”. Now the child has two ‘daddys” and two ‘mummys”, or looked at another way, a ‘male mummy’ and a ‘male daddy’ AND another ‘female daddy’ and a ‘female mummy’. This what the child will eventually have to come to terms with and communicate to her teachers, friends and peers.

Such complex absurdities that make a mockery of, and degrade the true concept of “mother” and “father”, are common-place in the homosexual community world-wide, where lesbians often refers publicly to their female marriage partner as their husband (and vice versa) and homosexual men refer to their married partners as their wife (and vice versa).

The universally understood concept of fatherhood and motherhood embodied in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPR), both of which NZ is a signatory to, involves a child’s parents being a mother (male) and a father (male). Of course an adoptive mother and/or father is consistent with these conventions (whether biologically related or not); but not the concept of two same-sex ‘married’ persons both being parents of a child and living as “spouses” with the child.

The proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955 in Louisa Wall’s legally flawed bill, discriminate against heterosexual married persons on the basis of their marriage status, and/or on persons based on their religious belief e.g. that marriage is ordained by God as limited to a man and woman (see petition to A-G).

The Quilter v. Attorney-General ruling [1998] by the Court of Appeal, determined unequivocally that same-sex couples are not discriminated against in terms of marriage under the Marriage Act 1955.

Auckland Family Lawyer Norman Elliott has expressed serious misgivings (NZ Herald 11/03/13) over the bill with respect to its impact on the Adoption Act 1955, stating:

“As well as allowing adoption by married couples the present act allows an individual person to adopt a child, although there are restrictions on a male adopting a female child. There are children living in families where the parent figures are same-sex couples, one of whom is the legal adoptive parent.

“Because this situation is allowed under the law it might be suggested it is only a small step to allow both adults to become adoptive parents. A mother or a father bringing up a child on their own is common in our society. That is very different however from a child having two legal fathers or two legal mothers, the consequence of same-sex adoption…. It would be irresponsible of Parliament and an injustice to children to approve a change to long-established adoption law on the coat tails of a change to marriage law. Such a change should only come about after due parliamentary process and full public debate.”

Parliament must be informed by the A-G that the proposed bill championed by Louisa Wall breaches BORA in a number of areas and cannot proceed due to aspects of its meaningless content. Adopted children ideally deserve as of right – both a loving mother and a loving father.

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (Contact: spcs.org@gmail.com)