SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Maurice Williamson MP: ‘Gay Icon’ must answer to a Higher Being

by Leave a Comment

Dominion Post Letter to Editor (24 April) accompanied by colour photo of ‘Gay Icon’ Maurice Williamson delivering pro-same-sex marriage [Marriage Amendment bill] speech on 17 April 2013. In 2004, he voted against civil unions at the Third Reading of the Civil Union Act, along with John Key and 22 other Nation Party MPs.

maurice williamson

National Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson’s marriage-amendment bill speech would have been half funny were it not for the assumptions he made as facts. He promised that the Sun would rise tomorrow, we’d not suffer skin diseases or plagues of toads, and that the world would carry on. His knowledge of physics assures us eternal punishment will last 2.1 seconds. His major error is to ignore that he’s answerable to a higher authority. It’s an error shared by the bill’s supporters, including some churches and their leaders. Though he and this Government might act as if they govern the universe, the Bible is clear that they will be called to account for their lives. Pussyfooting around, with platitudes about loving relationships and Jesus’ acceptance of everyone, ignores that, faced with an adulterous woman, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” – the later instruction being the condition placed on the forgiveness. The Church must be aware that after 30 years of “normalising ” homosexuality, the future demand will be to marry same-sex people in church because it would be “discriminatory” not to do so. What then, sheep?

Peter Bradley, Aotea.

24 April 2013. The Dominion Post. P. A10.

Make a “Marriage Pledge” to Uphold Marriage definition as one man-one woman – Family First NZ

by 2 Comments

Family First NZ is calling on all New Zealanders who oppose the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that is scheduled to have its Third Reading in Parliament on Wednesday 17th April 2013, to go online (see link below) and make a “Marriage Pledge” that:

(1) they will not use their electorate vote to vote for an electorate MP who supports changing the definition of marriage, and

(2) they will not use their party vote to vote for a party whose leader supports changing the definition of marriage.

Family First states in an explanatory note assures those making the pledge:

“The politicians have ignored thousands of your submissions. They have ignored calls for a referendum on this massive cultural change – at the same time as demanding a referendum on state asset sales! They have demanded their right for a conscience vote, yet have voted to ignore the consciences of celebrants, registrars, churches hosting weddings, and others in the wedding industry etc. They are ramming this bill through without giving it the due consideration and debate it deserves.

“BUT THEY CAN’T IGNORE YOU AT THE BALLOT BOX! In fact, it’s the one time that they DO have to listen – so they will take notice of this”

WEBSITE ADDRESS TO SUBMIT YOUR PLEDGE:

See: http://www.mymarriagepledge.org.nz/

To download poster/advert on pledge go to:

http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/My-Marriage-Pledge-Full-Page-Advert.pdf

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…]

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