SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel: Labour MPs ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill

by 1 Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity and lobby group, opposed to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, issued a Media Release today headed “Labour MP’s ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill”. It states:

Family First NZ has released a legal opinion which calls into question the validity of the assurances given in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill by the Bill’s author [Labour MP] Louisa Wall, and also points out the legal incorrectness of statements made to a newspaper by Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel.

An initial legal opinion (dated 27 Aug 2012) obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett before the 1st Reading in Parliament stated that marriage celebrants (including church ministers) exercising their public function will be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and acting unlawfully if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants by reason of the same sex of a couple seeking to be married.

On 29 August 2012 in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall stated that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has.

 

“The New Zealand Law Society submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has now questioned the validity of that assurance given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel also accused Family First NZ of ‘bearing false witness’ and ‘scaremongering’ when we raised concerns about the effect of the Bill, but our updated legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has labeled Chauvel’s statements about the effects of the Bill as ‘legally incorrect‘, ‘imprecise’ and confusing some of the issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“It appears Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel misunderstand the legal implications of the Bill.  The public and other politicians are not hearing the full story. The bill should be voted down. The social and legal ramifications are too great.”

Key Points of Legal Opinion – dated 19 November 2012

  • s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant (including a church minister who is a celebrant) to refuse to perform a same sex marriage.
  • The assurance given by Louisa Wall in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Bill, that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has, is legally wrong.
  • If the Bill is passed, 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.
  • Statements made by Charles Chauvel confuse the performance of a religious ceremony with the public function of a marriage celebrant.
  • If a religious body or group chooses to supply its premises for hire to the public (whether ‘consecrated’ or ‘non-consecrated space’, whether ‘sanctified’ or ‘non-sanctified space’ within a church, mosque, synagogue, tabernacle or temple), then it cannot refuse to do so by reason of any prohibited ground of discrimination in s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
  • It is not ‘scaremongering’ to state the law.

Source: Family First NZ media Releas 20 November 2012. www.familyfirst.org.nz

Registered Charity’s website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz owned by Family First NZ) suffers major attack

by 1 Comment

A website opposed to a law change that would allow gay marriage has been removed from the internet, less than 12 hours after its launch.

Conservative lobby group Family First [which was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission in 2007] this morning announced the launch of the protectmarriage site after Labour MP Louisa Wall’s members bill to redefine marriage, which is not currently defined in the Marriage Act, was pulled from the ballot last week.

The bill would make it clear that two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, could marry.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said his group had launched the website to protect the current definition of marriage, which he described as “one man, one woman”.

The website at www.protectmarriage.org.nz featured an online petition to Parliament and a tool to let people contact MPs to express their views.

But by midday the site had crashed after a large-scale denial of service attack.

The IP addresses associated with the attack were being actively blocked and by 2pm the website was up and running again.

However, by 5pm the website domain had been completely removed.

“Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed,” the web host [247 hosting.co.nz] said.

It was not known where the attacks were coming from, Mr McCoskrie said.

Mr McCoskrie was told it was a fairly major attack, which was aimed at the protectmarriage website but also took down quite a few of the host’s other websites.

“You always hope you can have a robust debate about ideas, and show respect for each other but when you’re trying to take out each other’s website it kind of suggests that you’re not going to get a good debate, so that’s disappointing.”

In explaining the website this morning Mr McCoskrie said politicians had been hammered recently with reasons to redefine marriage, and the website would help to balance the debate.

“Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it,”he said.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.”

Adding to the website’s early-launch woes, US band Train is also vowing to get one of their songs removed from the website, after a YouTube link to the song Marry Me was placed on the website without them knowing.

Train was asked yesterday by a New Zealand tweeter, @Mikey_J_S, why their music video appeared on the website.

Train responded: “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip”.

Mr McCoskrie said he had not yet heard from Train, and the song remained on the website.

“We’re not going to do anything based on Twitter, but if they contact us and ask us to remove, we will certainly respect their wishes.”

Initial indications are that the bill has the numbers to pass. Of the 76 of Parliament’s 122 MPs who responded to a New Zealand Herald survey last week, a clear majority of 43 were in support of the bill or leaning towards backing it.

Labour leader David Shearer has said he will support the bill, and Prime Minister John Key today said he would vote in favour the bill.

Source:

Anti-gay marriage website attacked 30 July 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280APNZ

Pro-Marriage Website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz) launched by registered charity – Family First NZ

by 2 Comments

Family First NZ, a registered charity (Reg. No. CC10094) that was registered with the Charities Commission on 21 March 2007, has announced that:  “A website to protect the current definition of marriage as ‘one man one woman’ has been launched today. The website is www.protectmarriage.org.nz and has been launched in response to the private members bill of Labour MP Louisa Wall which seeks to redefine marriage.”  [The registrant of the domain name protectmarriage.org.nz is Family First NZ, which purchased it on 4/08/2011].

“The website will provide research, latest news, quotes of interest, free downloadable resources about the role and function of marriage, and will host an online petition which will be presented to Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It also has the haveyoursay tool which enables people to easily contact their local MP, all MP’s, or a select group of MP’s to express their view.”

“Politicians have been hammered recently with the reasons for taking the twink bottle to the dictionary and to redefine ‘marriage’. This website will help balance the debate. Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.”

Family First also rejects the notion that NZ’ers are ready for same-sex marriage. In the US, polls have also shown support for same-sex marriage increasing, yet in every state where the issue has been on the ballet, voters have rejected it.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage. If the law was redefined to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking, for example, polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incest unions,” says Mr McCoskrie. “If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go.”

“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the role and purpose of marriage,”

“We would encourage politicians to spend their valuable time focussing on major issues such as family poverty, negotiating our way through the world recession, child abuse, and getting people employed – rather than taking to the dictionary with a twink bottle,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

“Say NO to ‘gay marriage’ Christians must stand firm” – call to readers of Challenge Weekly (owned by charity)

by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, has devoted half of its recent front page to a report on a ‘survey’ it carried out concerning opinions on two draft bills being prepared by two MPs on ‘gay marriage’. On page 4 it has a report republished from UK Christian Today: “Pro marriage couple receive hate mail: Online bulling for traditional stance [taken on marriage].” (Challenge Weekly 9 July 2012)

The entity owning Challenge Weekly, Challenge Publishing Society Ltd , incorporated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908 on 30 January 1975; was granted charity status (Charity Reg. No. CC34094) under the second head of charity law – “advancement of education”. The newspaper it owns reports:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the general consensus of the majority of people Challenge Weekly approached for comment on what appears to be growing support for “gay marriage”.

“Green Party MP Kevin Hague and Labour MP Louisa Wall both plan to draft bills supporting ‘same-sex marriage’ and a TVNZ poll showed majority support for a legal change to allow “gay” marriage. Another poll conducted in June by Herald-Digipoll, of 750 people, saw over 50 per cent of respondents in support of legalising gay marriage.

The report then goes on to reflect the views of three well-known Christian leaders on the proposed bills: former National Party MP Rev Graeme Lee (who says he is “outraged“), leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig (who says he is “opposed“) and former MP Gordon Copeland (who says he is “concerned“).

Mr Colin Craig is reported as saying:

“This debate is purely and simply about who can use the word marriage. There are many interested parties in this debate. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has significance culturally, historically, religiously and morally for many New Zealanders.”

[Comment: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”), a registered charity (CC20268) has as one of its objects: “To promote the benefits of lasting marriage, strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities”. Naturally SPCS will be taking an active interest in the ongoing debate on the legal definition of the term “marriage”. Prime Minister John Key has called on the public to engage in constructive debate on the issue, a call made following President Barack Obama’s recent declaration of his ‘revised’ stance on the matter. It is noteworthy that Challenge Publishing Society Ltd, a registered charity, has taken such an active interest in this subject, even though it is controversial, and has pitched its call to its readership – “SAY NO”.

Reference:

Challenge Weekly, July 9, 2012 Vol 70 Iss 25. pp. 1, 4.

Form speaks out

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2375-forum-speaks-out-.html

Forum to confront ‘sex ed’

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2333-forum-to-confront-sex-ed-.html