GAY TRUTH

Neither couple can produce a child, so the customary reason for “siblings” (brother and sister) not being able to marry or even have a sexual relationship -- a genetically impaired child -- is irrelevant. Advocates of this law change insist that marriage is all about love, commitment and stability. I believe the relationship between me and my sister meets that description. We love each other and have lived together for over 20 years.  We are committed to each other and care for each other, jointly own our home, have wills favouring each other. We have cared for dependent relatives and also, at one stage, an unrelated young girl.  Neither of us has her own children but we are still capable of raising a child, should we feel so inclined. What part of Ms Wall’s definition of marriage as “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” does not fit us? Perhaps it is the “union” bit. However, although it is supposed to define ma

March 18, 2013 ( Mercatornet.com ) - New Zealand’s Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage; no-one then thought it necessary to define what was self-evident, anywhere. As the agitation for same-sex marriage grew, however, the United States federal government passed the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, a move ratified by the majority of states. In New Zealand that did not happen and marriage revisionists have seized the initiative to define marriage in a way that would accommodate same-sex couples. A bill for this purpose was introduced last August by Labour Party list MP Louisa Wall . This piece of legislation, passed by two-thirds of MPs after its second reading debate last Wednesday, is meant to ensure that our marriage law is "not applied in a discriminatory manner." The  Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill  "will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people regardle