• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Tourism Board Wastes Taxpayer Funds On Marriage Stunt–says Family First NZ

June 25, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

In a media release issued on 25 June: Family First NZ a registered charity, is slamming the NZ Tourism Board for wasting taxpayer money on a stunt which is politically motivated. It also discriminates against couples who are of the opposite sex.

New Zealand’s tourism promoter is offering to fly two Australians to NZ and pay all ‘wedding’ expenses for them to become the first same-sex couple to wed under the redefinition of marriage laws, which come into effect on August 19.

“The Tourism Board is using a highly controversial law change which was rejected by more than half of NZ’ers to push a political agenda – and using taxpayer funds in the process. It is also disrespectful towards the Australian public who are currently debating the issue,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Not only is the offer discriminatory against a man and a woman who want to marry, but it fails to take in to account Australia’s marriage laws where less than a week ago, attempts to recognise gay couples who tie the knot overseas were shot down in the Australian parliament.”

“Did the Tourism Board make a similar offer to prostitutes when the decriminalisation of prostitution happened, or to students when the interest free student loans were introduced, or to families when the Working for Families package was announced?” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Tourism Board should stick to promoting the country for its scenery and tourist attractions – rather than entering in to the culture war around the definition of marriage.”

Family First will write to the Minister of Tourism expressing their concerns. They will also consider laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

ENDS

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: Human Rights Commission, NZ Tourism Board, Redefinition of Marriage

Unmasking the Misinformation Campaign of the Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Lobbyists

March 8, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

SUMMARY OF A Legal Opinion obtained  from Barrister Ian Bassett by Family First NZ. It has labeled the conscientious exemption proposed by the Select Committee Report on the same-sex marriage bill as ‘unprincipled and wrong’, ‘misguided’, ‘unjustifiably discriminatory’, and ‘based upon flawed legal advice’.

If the [Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Amendment] Bill was enacted incorporating the s5A recommendations of the Select Committee then:

Q1: Will marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion (who are also marriage celebrants) be forced to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’ even if to do so would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion?

Protected

(a) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

NOT Protected

(b) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will not be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if the religious body or the approved organisation endorsed same sex marriage.

Unclear

(c) It is unclear what will be the position of a marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation), where the approved religious body or organisation is split on the issue of same sex marriage or refuses to adopt an official position on the issue.

NOT Protected 

(d) (i) Independent marriage celebrants (ie who are not celebrants within (a) above) will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.

NOT Protected

(ii) Marriage registrars will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.

Q2: Will temples, mosques, synagogues, churches and other places of worship be required to be used to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’?

NOT Protected

(e) Church ministers, marriage celebrants, church elders (or persons or entity) supplying their churches (or temples or mosques or synagogues) to the public will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and acting unlawfully, if they refuse to supply their churches to a couple seeking to be married, by reason of the same sex of the couple.

READ THE FULL LEGAL OPINION

Click to access Legal-Opinion-6-March-Marriage-Act-Amendment-Bill.pdf

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: misinformation campaign, Redefinition of Marriage, same-sex 'marriage' lobby, same-sex marriage, same-sex marriages, solemnise marriage

Gay Marriage – Nothing New Under the Sun

January 22, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Astonishingly, Labour MP Louisa Wall, sponsor and promoter of the Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and MP John Hayes, stated in their respective contributions to the First Reading of the Bill, that first century Rome and Emperor Nero were societal models for same-sex marriages between men.

What they failed to inform parliament was that while Rome tolerated the marriage of homosexual men it also tolerated incestuous marriages. No mention was made of the fact that Nero was renowned for his vile acts of  brutality and depravity.

As Benjamin Wiker PhD states:

The historian Tacitus [56 – 117 AD] reported that under Nero, tyrannical passion, the hubris of proclaimed divinity, the corruption of power, and “every filthy depraved act, licit and illicit” seemed to reach an imperial peak. Nero not only had a passion for “freeborn  boys” but also for quite literally marrying other men and even a boy, sometimes playing the part of the woman in the union and sometimes the man.

Gay ‘marriage’ was celebrated by a select number of Roman emperors – a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of homosexuality.

The drive for same-sex ‘marriage’ cannot be couched (by its proponents) as a seamless advance on the civil rights movement…. [it] is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our “enlightened age” but a return to pre-Christian pagan sexuality.

Romans adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (aimed generally at boys between the ages of 12 and 18) and generally involving a “freeborn man” and his slave boys or those of others.

See full article by Benjamin Wiker PhD

The Catholic World Report, 22 May 2012.

Gay ‘Marriage’ – Nothing New Under the Sun

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx#.UP0R8yfSw_Y

www.benjaminwiker.com

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: Nero, pagan sexuality, pederasty, Redefinition of Marriage

SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.