SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Marriage Ceremony leading to “legal wife/husband”- DIA explanation and definitions

by Leave a Comment

Marriage Ceremony

There are two types of marriage ceremony:

  • [“A marriage is the formalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman, in accordance with the Marriage Act 1955” – DIA]. A ceremony solemnised by a Registrar of Marriages in a Registry Office. Registry Office ceremonies are not open to the public; and
  • A ceremony solemnised by an authorised Marriage Celebrant at a place other than a Registry Office. There is no legal requirement that a ceremony before a marriage celebrant be open to the public.

Registry Office ceremonies take place during normal office hours, but you can have a marriage celebrant perform your marriage ceremony at any time, on any day of the week.
During the ceremony before a marriage celebrant, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words “I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband” or words to similar effect.
If having a Registry Office ceremony before a Registrar of Marriages, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words “I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband”. Please be aware if you are considering having a Registry Office ceremony, that they are standardised to meet the legislative requirements of getting married, which includes standard marriage vows.

Sourced 5 August 2013

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-How-to-Get-a-Marriage-Licence#one

Registry Office Ceremony Marriage Vows

Following the Declaration of the Vows ….

The Registrar will then ensure the following details on the Copy of Particulars of Marriage
are completed:

Bride [female] and Groom [male] signatures.
The Registrar of Marriages will print their name and sign.

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/RegistryOfficeCeremonyMarriageVows.pdf/$file/RegistryOfficeCeremonyMarriageVows.pdf

What is Marriage? – The Department of Internal Affairs provides clarity

by Leave a Comment

What is a Marriage?

A marriage is the formalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman, in accordance with the Marriage Act 1955. The Marriage Act 1955 provides the criteria, rules and processes for two people to have their relationship solemnised as a marriage (by way of a formal ceremony) and officially registered in New Zealand.

Anybody can marry in New Zealand, as long as they are legally free to marry. Under New Zealand law this means that:

  • A marriage may only be entered into by couples of opposite sexes.
  • They are not already married or in a civil union with a person other than the person they will be marrying (or if they have been married, the marriage has been dissolved by a court of law).
  • They are old enough (16 or over, although parental consent is required if either party is 16 or 17 years old).
  • They are not closely related by blood, marriage, civil union or adoption. Details of these “prohibited” marriages appear on the form ‘Notice of Intended Marriage’, which is used to apply for a marriage licence.

If you do not live in New Zealand, you should check with the authorities in the place where you normally live to see if there are any special steps you must take or rules that apply when you marry in New Zealand.
Marriages registered in other countries will generally be recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Note, same-sex couples may not be married in New Zealand.

Sourced on 5 August 2013

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-How-to-Get-a-Marriage-Licence#one

Marriage Act 1955: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/whole.html

‘Same-sex Marriage Bill’ renders terms “husband” “wife” and “spouse” meaningless

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 24 March 2013:

The SPCS has petitioned the Attorney-General, Hon. Chris Finlayson, to fulfil his legal and moral obligations to report to Parliament forthwith under s. 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BOR), on ALL aspects of Labour MP Louisa Wall’s legally flawed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that in any way breach BOR in terms of its amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. SPCS contends that the bill blatantly discriminates against persons based on their “married status” and “religious belief” and furthermore, because its concept of “same-sex marriage” (SSM) constitutes an oxymoron *, parliament must reject the bill. See: https://www.spcs.org.nz/2013/open-petition-to-attorney-general-to-strike-down-marriage-definition-of-marriage-amendment-bill/

The Government Administration Committee has significantly altered the bill since it was introduced to parliament, so that it now includes dozens of “Consequential Amendments” (under Schedule 2, Part 1) to 14 separate Acts of Parliament – involving the replacement the terms “husband” and “wife” with “spouse”; “husband and wife” with “spouses” or “married couple”; and “husband or wife” with “either spouses”. By amending the Marriage Act so that “marriage”, currently restricted to couples comprising a male and female, includes same-sex couples too, it seeks to radically redefine (in effect) the terms “spouse” and “married couple” to include SSM, thereby rendering the traditional terms “husband” and “wife” and “spouse” and “married couple” (based on opposite sexes), meaningless in law. For example, ss. 24(3) and 366(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43) currently state:

24 Compulsion

(3) Where a woman who is married or in a civil union commits an offence, the fact that her husband or civil union partner was present at the commission of the offence does not of itself raise a presumption of compulsion.

366 Comment on failure to give evidence

  • (1)[Repealed]

(2)Where a person charged with an offence refrains from calling his wife or her husband, as the case may be, as a witness, no comment adverse to the person charged shall be made thereon.

The Bill (see Schedule 2), if passed, will replace “husband” with “spouse” in s. 24, so that the status of a married (heterosexual) woman’s true spouse is no longer referred to as a “husband” in law, but rather as a ‘spouse’ – a term redefined to include both individuals involved in any same-sex. The distinctive and unique meaning of the terms “husband”, “wife” and “spouses” (as involving opposite sexes in a traditional marriage union) is under direct attack and made meaningless.

If passed, the bill will replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her husband or wife” in s. 366(2). This additional negation of the meaning of “husband” and “wife” renders the terms meaningless, because it would define in effect, each “married” same-sex member in SSM as either a “husband” or “wife” in law. This is an absurdity, and a fundamental attack on those persons who have become “husband” and “wife” under the Marriage Act 1955. This blatant manipulation and corruption of language by a redefiniton of the status of those married under the Principle Act, constitutes discrimination against those having married status under this Act. It constitutes a serious breach of their human rights under s. 19 of BOR (see s. 21 (1)(b)(ii) Human Rights Act 1993) to be free from discrimination. Additionally, it discriminates against all those who hold religious beliefs that “marriage” involves only a man (husband) and a woman (wife).

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

(*Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side)

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

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