SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

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…]

No Public Mandate for Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Poll

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 26 February 2013 – Family First NZ.

A poll of New Zealanders has found that only 47% now believe that Parliament should change the definition of marriage, and 43% believe that civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples. The poll also found strong support for laws protecting celebrants, churches and schools if the law is still pushed through.  Almost half of NZ’ers believe there should be a Referendum on the issue.

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research this month, respondents were asked “In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union, amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples.  Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples?”

Only 47% said that Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry and 43% said they believed civil unions were sufficient for same sex couples.

49% of respondents said that any changes to the Marriage Act should be subject to a binding referendum, with 41% opposed. Labour supporters were most in favour of a Referendum.

“It is significant that as the debate on redefining marriage has continued, the support for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill has steadily dropped. We have got past the slogans of ‘marriage equality’ and ‘discrimination’ and the debate is now centered around the real purpose and role of marriage and the fact that there is actually no discrimination in the law currently,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, and the Protect Marriage campaign.

The poll also found strong support for protecting those who disagree with same-sex ‘marriage’ if it is redefined:

  • 80% of respondents think marriage celebrants should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings if they go against their personal convictions.
  • 73% of respondents believe churches and other places of faith should not be required to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings.
  • 55% of respondents believe faith-based schools should not be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage of a man and a woman, with 33% saying they should.
  • 53% oppose and 37% support requiring individual teachers in state schools to teach same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage if it goes against their personal beliefs.

Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, respondents were asked“Should families where there is both a mum and a dad have priority for the adoption of babies and children?”,52% of respondents said that families with both a mum and a dad should have priority for adoptions, with 38% saying they shouldn’t. There was a significant difference by gender with women split almost equally and men strongly in favour of priority for families with a mum and dad. National voters were most in favour of giving priority to heterosexual couples (60%).

“Despite the Select Committee arrogantly riding rough-shod over the overwhelming number of submissions in an attempt to ram this bill through and get it off the political agenda, this latest poll shows that the politicians simply do not have the mandate to change such a major cultural and social institution,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The politicians need to pause, and take a breath.”

The poll was carried out during February and has a margin of error of 3.2%.

______________

For full report go to:

Click to access MARRIAGE-AND-ADOPTION-POLL.pdf

 

 

Anti gay ‘marriage’ petition has 72,000 signatures

by Leave a Comment

Conservative lobby group Family First is expected to present a petition containing more than 72,000 signatures to a select committee hearing submissions on legalising gay marriage today.

The select committee is considering 20,000 submissions on Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which would legalise gay marriage in New Zealand.

Family First said in a statement its petition opposing the bill was signed by people from around New Zealand from “all walks of life”.

The petition says: “I support the definition of marriage in New Zealand being maintained as one man one woman. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said the petition had exceeded similar campaigns in the UK and Australia per head of population.

“This is an incredible response considering it’s not part of a formal referendum, and it certainly shows the level of public opposition to the bill.

And the signatures continue to come in,” he said.

“Our aim is to gain 100,000 signatures and to encourage politicians not to pass the bill.”

The select committee, which is sitting in Auckland, is also expected to hear from the NZ Christian Network and NZ Campaign for Marriage Equality today.

Source: APNZ

Article by Matthew Theunissen, 22 January 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gay-marriage/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503276&objectid=10860634

Note: Family First New Zealand is a registered charity (Charity No. CC10094)  and was registered with the Charities Commission on 21 March 2007.

 

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)).