SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Shock poll over gay marriage bill – “Public Opposition has grown significantly” – NZHerald

by Leave a Comment

Public opposition to same-sex marriage has grown significantly since a law change to legalise it came before Parliament, a Herald DigiPoll survey shows. [NZ Herald 26 March 2013]

Same-sex marriage campaigners blame scaremongering by religious groups for the increase in opposition, saying lobbying has intensified as the bill progresses through Parliament.

Opponents of gay marriage say the jump shows people are waking up to the negative social effects of changing the Marriage Act.

Asked what best fitted their view on marriage law, 48 per cent of those polled said marriage should remain between a man and a woman – an increase of 7.5 percentage points from a poll last June.

See more: Shock poll over gay marriage by Isaac Davison

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873630

[Today’s online poll on the same question is available on this page].

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:

http://bobmccoskrie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MARRIAGE-AND-ADOPTION-POLL.pdf

 

 

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)). 

Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men – NZ Herald article by lecturer and author – Laurie Guy

by Leave a Comment

All you need is love. That is the theme song of pro-same-sex marriage proponents. It is the slogan of Louisa Wall, author of the same-sex marriage bill. If two gay people love each other and want to “marry”, why don’t we allow this? But is love enough?

In answering that question, we need to be aware of two other questions: what is marriage? And why is the state involved? The latter question is crucial, because the core issue is one of affirmation, not rights – rights can be dealt with by specific legislation without amending the Marriage Act and upsetting lots of people.

Apart from conveying rights, marriage provides affirmation that the state/society encourages this relationship as a good thing. A crucial question is whether gay relationships are such a good thing as to be endorsed by society as “marriage”.

We should look at the issue of social endorsement through four lenses: love, commitment, health, and society’s interests.

Let’s begin with love. What is “love”? The word covers a raft of sometimes contrary meanings, from sexual desire centred on “my” self-gratification, to heroic self-giving for another. Both heterosexual and same-sex unions may well pass (or fail) this test. The love issue does not debar same-sex marriages.

However, love alone is not enough. It can be fleeting and transient. If marriage is to be serious and not trivial, it needs longevity, buttressed by commitment and faithfulness.

What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.

Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).

Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).

The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.

Can we affirm male gay relationships to the level of “marriage”, given the data on faithfulness and health? One can argue change on the basis of “me”, “my rights” and “choice”. But the debate is also about the good of society.

What society needs are stable, faithful, healthy relationships. Stable marriage has gravely weakened in the last generation. There is deep hurt and scarring of many, especially children, as a consequence.

In a direct sense gay “marriage” will not make this worse. Indirectly, however, it will, because it makes marriage, which for many is becoming vague and fuzzy, vaguer and fuzzier still. It is social engineering – with its negative aspects ignored.

We need to have a deep and wide debate, looking at all factors. The same-sex marriage debate is currently far too simplistic. The draft bill is a daft bill.

Laurie Guy is author of Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand 1960-1986 (Victoria University Press, 2002). He lectures in church history at Auckland University’s school of theology, and also at Carey Baptist College.

Source: Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men. 31 August 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

Note: The Objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. include: “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity ……” (s. 2d of Constitution).

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