SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Louisa Wall MP and the “gay marriage” ‘poster boy’ Emperor Nero

by Leave a Comment

Astonishingly, Roman Emperor Nero’s same-sex marriage (SSM) was raised in the First Reading of  the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill – on 29 August 2012 – by both the bill’s sponsor, Labour MP, Ms Louisa Wall, and National MP for Wairarapa, John Hayes, who opposes it.

Hayes, who voted against the bill at first and second reading, stated:

“Some [of my] constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave.”

First century Rome might have permitted SSM between men, but most people know that it also permitted incestuous marriage – a criminal offence under our law. SSM has deep links historically with the practice of incest.

Nero reportedly at age 16, married his half-sister. He also reportedly married two men, taking the role of bride to a former slave, Pythagoras, and the role of groom to a man named Sporus.

Nero might be a “poster boy” for those advocating early SSMs for men, but he was renowned for his vile acts of brutality and depravity. These reportedly included ordering the execution of his mother, kicking to death his pregnant second wife and executing countless people. Nero had a deep hatred of first-century Christians, many of whom he had thrown to dogs, others crucified, and others burned alive as flaming torches to serve as nightly illumination for has gardens.

Louisa Wall stated in her First Reading speech:

“Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has, over that time, changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero.”

Both Wall and Hayes appear to hold the view that Nero’s SSM  has some sort of relevance to the issue of what constitutes marriage. It does not. The morally debauched ‘lifestyle’ of a serial sexual pervert and criminal (murderer) should not be taken into account when considering the meaning of marriage.

The simple truth is that Wall is at odds with the majority of mainstream New Zealanders, in her attempts to force SSM onto New Zealand society.

Reference

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Hansard Record: Vol. 683, page 4913.

‘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)

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)).