NZ's homosexual immoral marriage debate fails to identify key issues
It is hugely concerning that the politicians failed to grasp some critical consequences of changing the definition of marriage.
There was virtually no discussion in the 2nd Reading about the major impact on adoption laws that this bill will have.
Changes to adoption are being 'snuck under the door', yet the changes will be weakening the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults.
The politicians are also failing to comprehend that the bill as proposed will coerce those with a conscientious objection to same-sex 'marriage' to solemnise them against their conscience.
This includes all independent marriage celebrants and marriage registrars who perform almost 70% of marriages, and potentially some ministers and celebrants from approved organisations.
What the promoters of the bill say, and what the bill actually offers, are two very distinct and separate things.
The Select Committee process has been shameful as they have attempted to ram this bill through at speed, and thorough and appropriate debate for such a major social change has been shut down in the interests of expediency.
The equality cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it. Marriage rightly discriminates.
A 14 year old cannot get married. Three or four people cannot get married to each other. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. Even those wanting 'equality' believe there should be restrictions.
In 2004, the government introduced Civil Unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships in New Zealand. There is currently no discrimination in the law against same-sex couples.
It is also highly ironic, but disturbing, that the Greens and Labour are so determined to have a Referendum on state asset sales, but won't allow one on the state's greatest asset of marriage.
This is called hypocrisy.
Family First will work hard to highlight the shortcomings of the bill and the complete lack of need for the bill on the basis of demands for equality and no discrimination.
There is still plenty of work to do.
There was virtually no discussion in the 2nd Reading about the major impact on adoption laws that this bill will have.
Changes to adoption are being 'snuck under the door', yet the changes will be weakening the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults.
The politicians are also failing to comprehend that the bill as proposed will coerce those with a conscientious objection to same-sex 'marriage' to solemnise them against their conscience.
This includes all independent marriage celebrants and marriage registrars who perform almost 70% of marriages, and potentially some ministers and celebrants from approved organisations.
What the promoters of the bill say, and what the bill actually offers, are two very distinct and separate things.
The Select Committee process has been shameful as they have attempted to ram this bill through at speed, and thorough and appropriate debate for such a major social change has been shut down in the interests of expediency.
The equality cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it. Marriage rightly discriminates.
A 14 year old cannot get married. Three or four people cannot get married to each other. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. Even those wanting 'equality' believe there should be restrictions.
In 2004, the government introduced Civil Unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships in New Zealand. There is currently no discrimination in the law against same-sex couples.
It is also highly ironic, but disturbing, that the Greens and Labour are so determined to have a Referendum on state asset sales, but won't allow one on the state's greatest asset of marriage.
This is called hypocrisy.
Family First will work hard to highlight the shortcomings of the bill and the complete lack of need for the bill on the basis of demands for equality and no discrimination.
There is still plenty of work to do.
