SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Gay ‘marriage’ is not a ‘human right’: ruling by European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

by Leave a Comment

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz2MhQdoWX0

 

Topless Vatican protesters – “In gay we trust” – Video Link

by Leave a Comment

Four women went topless in St. Peter’s Square to protest the Vatican’s opposition to gay marriage as he delivered his traditional prayer from his studio window overlooking the piazza … Protester and protest spokeswoman Inna Shevchenko, a “Ukrainian Feminist”, told a reporter on camera:

“Today we go with a message to the Pope to shut up his mouth and not to give his advices [sic] to those people who decide to legalise gay marriage. Today we are here to possess [sic] [protest] against homophobia”.

To view the videos illustrating the extreme tactics of some within the “gay”rights movement see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXQtrOl7_mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=IEGECK0Ec2o&feature=endscreen

For a scholarly analysis of the term “homphobia” see the SPCS article:

The term ‘Homphonia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in the Homosexual Agenda

https://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/

Gay marriage would see ‘mother’ and father’ disappear – Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

Terms such as mother, father, husband and wife could disappear from the law if gay marriage is legalised, MPs have been told.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie told the select committee considering Louisa Wall’s gay marriage bill that Spanish law had recently replaced the terms mother and father with Progenitor A and Progenitor B.

“The US State of Washington is to remove the terms husband and wife from divorce courts,” he said.

“In France the words mother and father will be stripped from official documents, McCoskrie tabled 24,000 extra signatures to petition against the bill on top of 48,000 already presented at parliament.

“I see marriage as similar to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is historical. It is the foundation of our culture,” he said.

“It certainly shouldn’t be altered.”

New Zealand Aids Foundation told the committee that countries with less discrimination against gay people have lower rates of HIV.

“The internalisation of homophobia leads to a devaluation of self and a reduction in the ability of gay, lesbian and transgender people to make positive decisions,” said doctor Jason Myers of the Foundation.

Source

Gay marriage would see ‘mother’ and father’ disappear – McCoskrie

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gay-marriage/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503276&objectid=10860708

APNZ. Buy Simon Collins

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

 

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.

 

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