Youth United

March 11th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Parliamentary youth reps unanimously back marriage equality

 In an unprecedented joint initiative youth reps from all eight parties in Parliament have combined together to demonstrate the overwhelming support amongst young New Zealanders for same sex couples to be able to marry.

Young Nats Vice President Shaun Wallis said that Young Nats were delighted the majority of National MPs voted in favour of marriage equality at first reading and hope they will continue to do at the second reading this week “Our members overwhelmingly supports marriage equality as we believe in freedom and equal opportunity for all Kiwis.”

spokesperson Sam Thompson said that marriage equality and adoption reform are the number one policy priority for . “We believe our representatives in Wellington really value equality and a fair go and will continue to support expanding the right to marry to everyone who has a partner they love and want to spend their life with.”

spokesperson Izzy Lomax said that the were delighted that all 14 Green MPs voted in favour of marriage equality as we believe in a society without discrimination, and look forward to an end to all discrimination against rainbow communities, starting with allowing loving same sex couples to marry”.

leader Curwen Rolinson said that is united in supporting a referendum on this issue. While there is a large and vocal proportion of who would vote in favour, it is by no means unanimous. We feel that the important thing is for progressive changes in legislation to come with the direct backing and support of the people – not filtered through layers of temporarily empowered politicians and political parties. A referendum is the fairest, most inclusive and democratic method of achieving this. It is our hope that MPs of other parties will realize this and join our call for a referendum.”

kaikorero rangatahi Teaonui Mckenzie said that he is proud that all three MPs support the right of same sex couples to marry and form a whanau. “This generation will not tolerate any form of discrimination, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation.”

spokesperson Ian Anderson says that “MANA are fully behind the Bill and will work to reduce societal inequality wherever possible, in this case bringing New Zealand law into line to provide the opportunity for same-sex couples to enter marriage.”

President Taylor Warwood said that “ have been long-time supporters of marriage equality, and were delighted that ACT MP John Banks voted for Louisa Wall’s bill at its first reading and believe its passage will be entirely consistent with ACT policy of one law for all.”

spokesman Damian Light said that “allowing couples who love each other to marry is just common sense and we’re proud that Hon Peter Dunne, our Party Leader, has been a vocal supporter of this bill. Our support of this bill is consistent with our liberal belief in equality for all.”

“This show of support for marriage equality by every party’s youth wing sends a powerful message. Marriage equality is no longer a question of if, but of when. We can’t wait for Parliament to vote in favour of the Bill.” said Campaign for Marriage Equality Spokesperson Conrad Reyners.

The eight youth reps, representing youth members of parties comprising 120 of the 121 MPs in Parliament believe their combined show of support reflects the over-whelming support for marriage equality amongst younger New Zealanders (76% in favour in Colmar Brunton May 2012 poll).

ENDS

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

109 Responses to “Youth United”

  1. hinamanu (1,068 comments) says:

    ““This generation will not tolerate any form of discrimination, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation.”

    What they are supporting are countless lives of broken children because gays can’t keep long lasting permanent relationships

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. anonymouse (705 comments) says:

    Parliamentary youth reps unanimously back marriage equality

    err, According to the actual text of the release they don’t… 7 parties support it, and NZ First are doing what Winston tells them to do, Fudge and sit on the fence…. ( just like he is)

    NZ First Youth leader Curwen Rolinson said that NZ First Youth is united in supporting a referendum on this issue. While there is a large and vocal proportion of NZ First Youth who would vote in favour, it is by no means unanimous.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    A couple of points – 1st of all the younger generation has had a constant bombardment of positive role models of gay people portrayed in the media. Programs like Glee, have been relentless in their portrayal of gay people as positive and normal and unremarkable. So there has been a massive propaganda campaign from the mainstream media. This has in my view brainwashed the younger generation.

    And just while I am here the assurances that there would be no discrimination against churches and pastors has already been shown to be false. It is clear that marriage celebrants if they are not representing a church, will have to marry gay couples if asked. They will not be able to object on the grounds of freedom of conscience. So this means that about two thirds of all marriage celebrants will be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages or face prosecution and loss of licence.

    And also Louisa Wall has made it clear that churches will be required to hire out their premises for same-sex couples if they do so already for heterosexual people. Although the church auditorium itself is exempted, the church Hall is not. Therefore a gay couple might want to hire a church hall for the wedding reception and the church could not refuse on the grounds of freedom of conscience and beliefs against gay marriage.So churches can expect to face fines and ultimately be shutdown if they hold to their biblical beliefs.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. GPT1 (2,022 comments) says:

    Winston’s mini me is somewhat equivical.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    And also Louisa Wall has made it clear that churches will be required to hire out their premises for same-sex couples if they do so already for heterosexual people.

    Correction – she made it clear that the requirement of churches (or anyone else) not to disciminate when hiring facilities will not be changed.

    How many churches have been forced into hiring halls to gays or heathens or the Mongrel Mob so far?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    Who on the bottom of National’s party list would listen to the youth wing?…..children from Marriages are a net benefit to the GDP of NZ.

    National’s youth wing will see people paying more in tax. :cool:

    The party votes from National are wide open for Colin Craig. Some from Labour also. As 50% of voters don’t want gay marriage. All Colin need do is announce publicly that he wants the party vote. The Conservatives would make great kingmakers in a coalition from either side as both Labour and National hold mostly the same views on policy around childrens’ welfare.

    Marriage is the best welfare system that humanity has had for the last few thousand years, which has progressed into producing the best outcomes for children. As the educators and child welfare researchers of NZ have acknowledged “A good home life is the most significant differance between outcomes in children on all indicators.” And children of Marriages do best on every indicator. As adults, those children from Marriages are a net benefit to the GDP of NZ.

    We don’t spend enough on child ‘poverty’, we don’t spend enough on children’s ‘health’, we don’t spend enough on ‘early’ childhood education, we don’t spend enough on children’s ‘education’, we don’t spend enough on ‘proper’ food for children, we don’t spend enough on teenage ‘mental health’. But why should the GDP net benefit individual be having to spend on all that via tax? Marriage is a free welfare system – and they are the very living examples of it’s benefits. That money wasn’t ever spent on their parents Marriages. Marriage is a free welfare system for NZ society that produces excellent outcomes. And parents are taking on that responsability – and National and Labour are taking married parents for granted: Devalueing the very thing that defines who and what they are, and do best: Raising the next generation of mature, net benefit individuals. Like they should. Or should they instead be doing something else? say, producing more of the next generation’s problems? Why do National and Labour treat Marriage ‘exactly’ the same as other relationships? Have we really voted these people in for 40yrs – people who won’t recognise or respect Marriages’ major benefits to the fabric of NZ society – in every generation? Who won’t ‘dare’ antagonize those who don’t commit to Marriage and/or children, by placing it above their relationships – the costly relationships – the no relationships at all parents? Do National and Labour really, truthfuly, respect Marriage?

    Well 50% of voters now know they don’t !. All excesses of the welfare state can be rolled back if Marriage is put back on it’s rightful pedestal and supported. All Married women with children should have the right to work in education, health, justice, law, accounting, banking, science, infact, nearly anything at all, from 9-3. Tax free. Those mothers who want to do more, of course can, but those who want to spend more personal time with their own children, and for whatever reason, should legally be allowed to do so.

    But then again what would I know about the costs of ‘things’, I’m not Bill English, nor am I someone at the bottom of National’s party list who might soon know.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    It is clear that marriage celebrants if they are not representing a church, will have to marry gay couples if asked.

    Bollocks. Two years ago I asked a celebrant if he would officiate at my daughter’s wedding. He turned me down. I can’t remember the reason, that isn’t important – I simply found someone who could do it. And a venue that could do it, they turned us down on some dates (they made the excuse of already being booked) but we arrived at a mutual agreement.

    I don’t see how that will change, trying to claim there will be a modern version of shotgun weddings where the vicar is forced to say “does anyone object to this marriage?” seems little more than desperation to find problems that don’t exist.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Changeiscoming (202 comments) says:

    Young Labour spokesperson Sam Thompson said that marriage equality and adoption reform are the number one policy priority for Young Labour.

    Says it all really, stuff the economy, stuff defence, stuff welfare reform, stuff anything else…”marriage equality” and adoption reform are no. 1. Social engineering from the socialists in Labour and National are not only allowing it to happen they are actively supporting it.

    bring on the next election.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    The (holy) crusade continues!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    LOL – how could anyone not back “marriage equality” whatever that means?

    Marriage by definition requires one of each gender though, redefining the word will not bring “equality”.

    All goes to show how incredibly dumb the chattering classes really are – they think silly word games will change the rules of nature

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “….they think silly word games will change the rules of nature…”

    Well put Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    CHANGE
    into a truck

    http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/115/9/4/CHANGE_INTO_A_TRUCK_by_zandstra.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bringbackdemocracy (429 comments) says:

    The comments by the Winston Youth leader vary from the headline.
    The youth wing of New Zealand’s 5th largest party, the Conservatives certainly don’t support a law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    I hope some youth reading this will check out the following links that show that there is more of a difference to homosexual relationship than they are are just attracted to someone of the same sex.

    I quote briefly from the first link, “A recent survey of New Zealand gay men undertaken in conjunction with the NZ AIDS Foundation revealed nearly two thirds of gay men are drug users, and the majority also cheat on their partners, frequently. The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year”

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3333

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3335

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. iMP (2,457 comments) says:

    Do “Yooth United” extend their support for “equality” to polygamists, bigamists, and threesomes to get married? If not why not? These are all consenting adult sexualities that have their “rights” denied them.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    Being on the so-called ‘right side of history’ is one thing, but the main game is being on the right side of the accounting ledger!

    Marriage is a free welfare system with superior outcomes for ALL stakeholders than the welfare state system!

    Say NO to de-valueing Marriage further and de-valueing the currency further – if you value YOUR money that is! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    Marriage is a free welfare system with superior outcomes for ALL stakeholders than the welfare state system!

    Great! Let’s get the gays onto that free, superior system, right away! :cool:

    It is about being on the right side of the accounting ledger after all :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch (6,532 comments) says:

    Reading that release made me cringe.
    The youth have been so brain-washed and they don’t even know it.

    blah blah blah…fairness….blah blah blah…equality….blah blah blah….justice….blah blah blah….discrimination.
    All the catch words of the narrative in there. They really have no idea.
    The puffed up self-righteousness almost makes me want to throw up.

    Gay marriage has nothing to with things that define a real marriage – commitment, sacrifice, monogamy, and children.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Waiting too long for a bus? Double the number of buses on the road by calling trucks buses.

    Make gravity go away by calling it something else.

    Call the rectum a vagina and create sexual equality.

    Rename your Trabant a Farrari. Yes, Farrari has a nice ring…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (743 comments) says:

    “The youth have been so brain-washed and they don’t even know it.”

    that coming from a religious man……….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    It’s easier to fool people than set them straight…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Oh, so the yoof wings all support it.

    Well, that must mean it’s a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Chucks links are a worthy read for anyone who dares touch the electrified third rail of homosexual politics -the dark side of homosexuality. In truth, the gay lifestyle hasn’t changed, it is every bit as licentious and depraved as it ever was, but in thanks to a slick propaganda campaign with carefully sanitized portrayals of homosexuals on TV, film and other media, many people actually believe homosexual relationships mirror those of heterosexuals. Lets look at some hard evidence:

    * Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population


    * Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus

    
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization

    
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics

    
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex

    
* 78% of homosexual men have at some point been affected by STDs

    “Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987.
    United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
    Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.

    Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
    Rueda, E. “The Homosexual Network.” Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53

    The candid truth about homosexuality is routinely discussed in medical journals and even in gay niche media – it is the cowardly, politically correct mainstream media who thru dereliction of duty fail to inform the wider public.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    After 40 yrs of neglecting to support the most obvious and cheapest place for the welfare of children, being the natural co-habitation of their parents, conservatism is now becoming the counter culture!

    And for those youth who ‘think’ they are ‘progressive’, you should then be true progressives: view the road we have taken with regards to childrens’ welfare as the failure it is, turn around and seek another path. As the first to seek another path is the true progressive. :cool:

    There is nothing ‘equal’ ‘progressive’ or ‘fair’ in life after ‘surviving’ a sub-standard childhood!

    Children should be in places where they thrive – the co-habitation of their natural parents!

    Be progressive, be the counter culture, say yes to conservatism – it’s the coolest thing to do!

    Just look at my following! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MT_Tinman (3,322 comments) says:

    Maori Party kaikorero rangatahi Teaonui Mckenzie said that he is proud that all three Maori Party MPs support the right of same sex couples to marry and form a whanau. “This generation will not tolerate any form of discrimination, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation.”

    Fantastic stuff!

    More of this hilarity please.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    And further more, if these pimply faced doctrinaire drones are truly representative of the future of NZ politics then God help us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Man is incomplete until he’s married, then he’s finished … buggered.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    “Man is incomplete until he’s married, then he’s finished … buggered.”

    That would be literally true in the case of homosexual marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    In reply to Pete George – Pete my concern is that churches will have to open up their facilities for gay weddings. It appears there may be an exemption for the actual church auditorium. But the church Hall is not exempt for say a gay marriage reception. The church will not be able to object on the grounds of conscience and will be liable for criminal prosecution. That is my concern.
    Will that happen? Yes it probably will because gay activists will want to make a point against the churches. Apparently and has been documented by others on this blog in the past, it is already happening in Canada where churches face lawsuits for not accepting gay marriage.
    Regarding marriage celebrants the point is clear. You cannot refuse to marry gay couple on the grounds that you object to gay marriage. The only exception is if you are a pastor or marriage celebrant explicitly representing a church. If you are a private marriage celebrant, as approximately 2/3 are in New Zealand, then you will be prosecuted if you object on grounds of conscience to marrying a gay couple.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    Well yes, youth would back something as daft as “gay” marriage….they are youth after all. We all were pigshit dumb as chooks youth once upon a time. Apparently all the greens, most of labour, the maori party & a larger chunk of national still are.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Scott – Kevin Hague covers all of your concerns in this blog post: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/03/11/the-marriage-equality-bill-and-religion/

    Briefly:
    1. Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will
    2. Churches will not be forced to say anything different
    3. No change is being made to the law around use of church buildings

    And Hague points out that whenever one obscure possibility is dealt with Family First finds another another goalpost on another field to try and kick the marriage ball in the guts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    BTW, what constitutes a youth in NZ First? Someone not incontinent?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    PG, if Kevin Hague was so clever why is not the rate of HIV amongst homosexual males close to that of heterosexuals instead of at least 20 – 30 times higher? He was the directer of the AIDS Foundation and has refused to suggest homosexual reduce the number of sexual partners they have. Instead he has promoted the lie that condoms will protect you long term even if you have multiple partners.

    If it was not for homosexuals and bisexuals the rate of HIV amongst heterosexuals would be very rare.

    I would take little notice of anything Kevin Hague has to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Scott said:

    “It is clear that marriage celebrants if they are not representing a church, will have to marry gay couples if asked.”

    To which resident dilettante Pete George said:

    “Bollocks.”

    If you are saying that the Marriage Act wouldn’t oblige non-religous celebrants to marry gay couples, then you’re probably right. However, such a person would probably be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 – and could then be dragged through the Human Rights Review Tribunal and suffer all the procedural iniquities that entails.

    PG – can you please give clearly considered reasons – not your own anecdotes – for why something similar to M.J. v. Nichols would not occur here?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Pete George, unfortunately most of us realise that what politicans say to get a law past, and what they say afterwards are two quite different things.

    Witness John Key’s “if I see good parents” comment on the smacking law.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (10,467 comments) says:

    These dumb brainwashed Progressives have no business interfering with a traditional custom that has been around a long time before them and will be around a long time after them.

    They are very temporary compared to the institution of marriage.

    What this vote shows is that Parliament as it exists in NZ is constantly over-reaching itself, interfering in things it has no right to, and using its unbridled power to force unwanted change on to a large sector of the population.

    We need to dump the lot of the useless bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. graham (2,348 comments) says:

    Reading the link Pete George has provided, point three actually says this.

    3. No change is being made to the law around use of church buildings
    Some churches and others could really do with a refresher on the human rights law that New Zealand has had since the 1970s, including the updated prohibited grounds for discrimination that were added 20 years ago. If a church makes its church hall available to the public for hire, if someone sells professional photography services, or if someone sells flowers for a living it has been against the law for them to decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of the sexual orientation of their customer for the past 20 years, and on the basis of the customer’s gender for almost 40 years. Louisa’s bill does not change this in any way.

    So does that mean that Scott is correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    @Kevin Hague

    1. Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will

    Section 29 of the Marriage Act authorises celebrants to marry couples, but explicitly does not oblige them to do so. One can easily imagine that there are many grounds upon which a particular church or a particular celebrant might object to marrying a particular couple, and since 1955 this provision has enabled them to decline to do so.

    In all of this time I am not aware of any decision to decline being challenged through the Courts, and it’s easy to see why: couples who wish to marry are looking for a positive experience, not one carried out grudgingly, against the celebrant’s will.

    Adding to the categories of couples who can marry does not alter, in any way, the law around celebrants declining to marry.

    However, Family First found a barrister who thought there was a chance Courts would find that declining to marry a couple on the grounds of sexual orientation would be a breach of the Human Rights Act in relation to the provision of goods and services.

    While the Human Rights Commission – who would be the body to investigate any complaint of discrimination – has been crystal clear that it would not uphold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to solemnise a couple, and the majority of legal opinion supports the HRC position, some reputable legal sources have also said that it’s not possible to say that no court would interpret the existing law in the way that Family First (and many religious folk) fear.

    Most of the submissions against Louisa’s Bill expressed the fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples even if it offends their genuine religious belief. While the real risk of this was assessed as being very small indeed, it was clearly nobody’s intention (sorry, not quite nobody – there was one submission arguing churches should be compelled to marry any couples who wished to marry and were legally entitled to do so) that the state should compel churches to act against their beliefs.

    For that reason the select committee added a clause to put beyond all doubt that any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a church can refuse to marry any couple.

    The churches who were concerned and who have examined the revised Bill appear to now accept that there is no risk that they will be required to do anything differently. Unfortunately some have now shifted their ground and are now professing concern for independent celebrants who are not acting on the authority of the church.

    The fact that some churches (and, of course, Bob McCoskrie and Colin Craig) have shifted ground in this way indicates that their actual position is a homophobic one, and that the ‘arguments’ being used are just window dressing to disguise that. For the sake of completeness though:

    – The body representing independent celebrants reported an overwhelming majority of its members support the Bill;
    – The committee received perhaps two submissions from independent celebrants who said they did not wish to solemnise marriages for same-sex couples, in both cases because of personal religious faith;
    – The Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it would not uphold a discrimination complaint against such celebrants;
    – If the HRC decision were appealed to a higher Court, most lawyers say the appeal would clearly fail, particularly if the refusal was because of religious or ethical reasons;
    – It’s hard to imagine a celebrant refusing to marry a same-sex couple because of sheer prejudice (“I hate gays”) without an ethical or religious basis, but I concede that if such a case ever arose it would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court made of the legal balance between the explicit statement not obliging celebrants in the Marriage Act against the more general requirement not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services in the Human Rights Act, and the Bill of Rights Act.
    – Why on earth would a couple go this rigmarole rather than just finding one of the vast majority of celebrants who wants to marry them?

    and let’s not forget that the position of independent celebrants is very clearly not about the relationship of church and state, or religious freedom. Independent celebrants act as agents of the state, with no qualification.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    @Kevin Hague

    2. Churches will not be forced to say anything different

    As submissions started to come in, we started to see an argument that we hadn’t seen before. Section 56 of the Marriage Act made it an offence to deny the validity of someone’s marriage.

    This provision, which so far as we can tell has never been used, finds its origin in the belief of the Catholic Church back in the 1950s that only marriages carried out in the Catholic Church were valid.

    Again, some churches and their adherents had been whipped up into a fear that this provision would be used once Louisa’s bill was passed to persecute and imprison those whose religious belief is that marriage should only be between a woman and a man.

    While this seemed far-fetched, there was certainly no intent for this to occur, so the select committee has simply recommended the repeal of this section, which seems to serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    @Kevin Hague

    3. No change is being made to the law around use of church buildings

    Some churches and others could really do with a refresher on the human rights law that New Zealand has had since the 1970s, including the updated prohibited grounds for discrimination that were added 20 years ago.

    If a church makes its church hall available to the public for hire, if someone sells professional photography services, or if someone sells flowers for a living it has been against the law for them to decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of the sexual orientation of their customer for the past 20 years, and on the basis of the customer’s gender for almost 40 years. Louisa’s bill does not change this in any way.

    That doesn’t affect churches’ religious space, of course, and again who would want a wedding venue where they weren’t welcome, or a photographer or florist who was unsupportive? Once again these are not real arguments, but are red herrings designed to divert the eye away from the real source of opposition – prejudice.

    The select committee has ensured that the State does not encroach on the religious belief or practice of churches. They will not be required to do or say anything different. But, in allowing those churches, denominations and congregations that DO support marriage equality to be able to exercise their beliefs too, this Bill will in fact extend religious freedom.

    It seems a shame that some in our churches see that as a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Why on earth would a couple go this rigmarole rather than just finding one of the vast majority of celebrants who wants to marry them?

    It’s called a test case. Someone sets themselves up for deliberate disappointment so they can test the law and make an example of some principled person who they disagree with – often (but not always) through trial by media.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    graham – they are liable for prosecution now if they refuse to hire a hall to someone on gender or sexual orientation grounds.

    It’s the same as for other things, like you are liable for prosecution for refusing to employ someone on gender or sexual orientation grounds. To avoid the unlikely chance of any problems you say the job/hall is unavailable, or someone else got it.

    How many prosecutions have there been for churches refusing to hire a hall for a civil union reception of sexual orientation grounds? I don’t recall any uproar over that possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Is there a reason that, instead of answering the direct question put to you, you are just posting massive chunks of text on the unrelated question of whether churches would be forced to conduct gay weddings?

    As a matter of good faith, please answer the following:

    1 – Would the Human Rights Act oblige a marriage celebrant who – while not being affiliated to a church has an ethical objection to gay marriage – to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex if asked.

    2 – Assuming that marriage celebrant declined, and the Human Rights Commission did decide to bring a complaint against him after all, on what legal grounds could he defend himself.

    Again, analysis would be preferred over your own personal anecdotes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Pete George (16,609) Says: March 11th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    “It’s hard to imagine a celebrant refusing to marry a same-sex couple because of sheer prejudice (“I hate gays”)…”

    Pity help the celebrant who thinks marriage concerns mating and child rearing, not homosexual acts. He’s being told he got it all wrong. A core belief, his whole life, blown out queers’ arses.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Chuck, I’m not sure why you keep bringing Aids into this. Are you saying that people with certain illnesses shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Or people with a higher risk of certain illnesses shouldn’t be alowed to get married?

    Maybe all people who have sex with prostitutes and all people who have sex in Africa should be banned from getting married?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato, I’m not a lawyer, perhaps you should ask one who isn’t affiliated to Family First, but I’ll have a go.

    1. The Human Rights Act obliges no discrimation basd on sexual orientation, but I don’t see how it obliges anyone to be forced to perform a marriage. If I asked to get married in the Basilica or by the new Pope I suspect I would be turned down – are you claiming there would be an obligation for me to get my way?

    2. It would depend on why the celebrant declined. If they had said “Sorry, I’m washing my hair that day” I think they would have ample legal grounds to defend themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, I take it you’re not a practicing Christian by the sound of your comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Actually Pete, I don’t believe in disbelieving something because of who they are affiliated with. I prefer to debate their conclusions based on logic and reason. You have put forward your opinion on what the law does and does not say. It’s not unreasonable to ask you to justify it.

    1- This answer only works if A) you don’t understand, despite repeated attempts to point it out to you, that the exemptions available to representatives of religious bodies aren’t available to independent celebrants; or B) you don’t think the RCC is a religious organisation.

    2-Clearly you think someone’s conscience rights are protected if they are able to lie about their motivation for exercising them. It strikes me that somebody who is willing to stick their neck out re an unpopular cause like traditional marriage might also have some ethical qualms about lying about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    Well let’s sum up then. Churches cannot decline on grounds of conscience to hire out their premises, such as the church Hall, to gay couples wishing to have a venue for the wedding reception.

    Marriage celebrants, who are not affiliated to churches, which is two thirds of marriage celebrants in New Zealand today, will be prosecuted if they decline to officiate at gay marriages on grounds of opposition to gay marriage.

    So you cannot oppose gay marriage on grounds of conscience. You must hire out your church Hall to them, you must officiate at their weddings. The only exceptions are pastors and the actual church auditorium.

    Despite all the bobbing and weaving, those are the facts

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato

    1. My post at 2.10, it covers all of this. The very first paragraph:

    Section 29 of the Marriage Act authorises celebrants to marry couples, but explicitly does not oblige them to do so. One can easily imagine that there are many grounds upon which a particular church or a particular celebrant might object to marrying a particular couple, and since 1955 this provision has enabled them to decline to do so.

    And details:

    – The body representing independent celebrants reported an overwhelming majority of its members support the Bill;

    – The committee received perhaps two submissions from independent celebrants who said they did not wish to solemnise marriages for same-sex couples, in both cases because of personal religious faith;

    – The Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it would not uphold a discrimination complaint against such celebrants;

    – If the HRC decision were appealed to a higher Court, most lawyers say the appeal would clearly fail, particularly if the refusal was because of religious or ethical reasons;

    2. They don’t have to lie. They could simply say “No, I’m sorry I can’t marry you”. That’s legal.

    And the likely response will be something like “Ok, thanks anyway, I’ll find someone who can”. That’s common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    “Chuck, I’m not sure why you keep bringing Aids into this. Are you saying that people with certain illnesses shouldn’t be allowed to get married?”

    No, I brought AIDS into the debate to should how incompetent Kevin Hague was as director of the NZ AIDS Foundation and why I think little notice should be taken of anything he says.

    I am not saying people with certain illnesses should not be allowed to get married as long as they are not both of the same sex.

    AIDS is relevant as this whole thing is mainly about promoting homosexuality and as has been pointed out young people who have been indoctrinated for years have been about just about everything about the true homosexual lifestyle including AIDS.

    BTW – Have you checked out the links I posted?

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3333

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3335

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Scott:

    You must hire out your church Hall to them, you must officiate at their weddings.

    No, I think the facts show you are totally wrong. That hasn’t been the case for anyone getting married and it will remain the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Chuck – no, I haven’t checked out those posts and I don’t see any need to. I don’t think it’s relevant, and I think your blatant anti-homosexuality stance stinks.

    Cato, I hope that analysis absent any personal anecdotes is direct enough for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George –

    I’ve asked you a specific question and you haven’t answered it. To clarify:

    1 – Regardless of the current policy of the Human Rights Commission – does the Human Rights Act oblige a non-church affiliated marriage celebrant who to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex if asked?

    2 – Regardless of its present stated policy, if the Human Rights Commission did decide to bring a complaint against him in the Human Rights Tribunal, on what legal grounds could the celebrant defend himself?

    I have a third question:

    3 – You have repeatedly stated your agreement with the Kevin Hague assertion that: “Why on earth would a couple go this rigmarole rather than just finding one of the vast majority of celebrants who wants to marry them?” – but are you willing to promise never to say that again if overseas case law demonstrates that there are couples who are willing to bring the full force of the law down on people who don’t want to provide them services for ethical reasons – whether or not there are plenty of alternatives?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato – I have answered 1 and 2, see 2.31 pm and 2.52 pm.

    3. I’m not willing to promise anything regarding overseas case law, that’s just ridiculous. I have no idea what case law of Saudi Arabia or Mongolia is.

    It’s possible an already married adulteress transvestite tries to bring the full force of the law down on a 98 year old Buddhist celebrant on life support because they wouldn’t agree to marry them to their pet canary but I won’t try and pre-judge that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    It’s possible an already married adulteress transvestite tries to bring the full force of the law down on a 98 year old Buddhist celebrant on life support because they wouldn’t agree to marry them to their pet canary but I won’t try and pre-judge that.

    So heavily pissed this early? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    3 – That’s a straw man. What about Canada or the United Kingdom. If countries with similar constitutional and legal systems have previously considered the matter then they are worthy of consideration. Moreover, we aren’t talking about the laws, we are talking about the willingness of people to use the law to force people to marry them (or provide other wedding services) in spite of an ethical objection. I repeat, will you drop your protestation that no gay couple would ever want a marriage celebrant to celebrate their wedding against his or her will if examples of this can be given.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George – can you please answer questions 1 & 2 in a form acceptable to Lockwood Smith instead of Margaret Wilson?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    I don’t believe I claimed “that no gay couple would ever want a marriage celebrant to celebrate their wedding against his or her will”.

    Do you agree that it’s very unlikely anyone, gay or not, would want a marriage celebrant to celebrate their wedding against his or her will in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Queen fights for gay rights: Monarch makes historic pledge on discrimination and hints that if Kate DOES have a girl, that means equal rights to the throne too
    • First time Her Majesty has signalled support for gay rights in 61-year reign
    • Also promotes ‘empowerment’ of women in drive to boost human rights
    • Insiders say her decision to highlight the event is a ‘watershed’ moment

    The Queen will tomorrow back an historic pledge to promote gay rights and ‘gender equality’ in one of the most controversial acts of her reign.
    In a live television broadcast, she will sign a new charter designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the ‘empowerment’ of women – a key part of a new drive to boost human rights and living standards across the Commonwealth.
    In her first public appearance since she had hospital treatment for a stomach bug, the Queen will sign the new Commonwealth Charter and make a speech explaining her passionate commitment to it.
    Insiders say her decision to highlight the event is a ‘watershed’ moment – the first time she has clearly signalled her support for gay rights in her 61-year reign.
    The charter, dubbed a ‘21st Century Commonwealth Magna Carta’ declares: ‘We are implacably opposed to all forms of  discrimination, whether rooted  in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.’
    The ‘other grounds’ is intended to refer to sexuality – but specific reference to ‘gays and lesbians’ was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290824/Queen-fights-gay-rights-Monarch-makes-historic-pledge-discrimination-hints-Kate-DOES-girl-means-equal-rights-throne.html#ixzz2NC8thw9h

    So this hinges on three words: “or other grounds”.
    And is written so that all countries will agree to it, even those that execute gay people for being gay.
    That will work.
    So this is about as definite in its wording as that fucking badly written real estate agreement “the Treaty of Waitangi”

    British LGBT activist Peter Tatchell told the Independent that if the Queen choose to back equality now, it will stand in contrast to her previous inaction. “While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to be gay-friendly. Not once during her reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community,” he said. “While she has spoken approvingly of the UK’s many races and faiths, for six decades she has ignored LGBT Britons.

    Yes, so “or other grounds” really nails it.

    The Queen is set to sign the charter in Monday during a live televised ceremony from Marlborough House on London’s Pall Mall.

    Oh, jolly good – that’s later today. It will clear things up. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George – I do agree it is less likely. I also believe that overseas experience shows us that there are those who do – especially if the couple in question can’t stand the idea of somebody withholding approval of their union.

    Read M.J. v. Nichols – a Saskatchewan case. Clearly it happens.

    My question is, in such a case, whose rights do you believe should prevail?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Link here: http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2009/2009skqb299/2009skqb299.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    Chuck – no, I haven’t checked out those posts and I don’t see any need to. I don’t think it’s relevant, and I think your blatant anti-homosexuality stance stinks.

    Typically PG well presented argument. You just leave out homophobe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9920238/Queen-to-sign-new-charter-backing-gay-rights.html

    “Forty-one of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations retain legislation against homosexual acts. In parts of Nigeria and Pakistan those found to have taken part in gay sex can receive the death penalty, in Trinidad and Tobago it can incur 25 years in jail and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.”

    Be careful where you honeymoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. wrightingright (145 comments) says:

    It seems this is a case of one step forward for progress and two steps back for freedom. (people won’t be free to exercise their conscious)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Matthew Flannagan (74 comments) says:

    “The churches who were concerned and who have examined the revised Bill appear to now accept that there is no risk that they will be required to do anything differently. Unfortunately some have now shifted their ground and are now professing concern for independent celebrants who are not acting on the authority of the church.

    The fact that some churches (and, of course, Bob McCoskrie and Colin Craig) have shifted ground in this way indicates that their actual position is a homophobic one, and that the ‘arguments’ being used are just window dressing to disguise that. For the sake of completeness though:”

    Actually that’s a lie, the original concern raised was that celebrants could be forced to marry contrary to their beliefs, not that Churches could be, I have the original questions given to the HRC, I was also part of a debate at Auckland Uni back in October, involving both Craig and Wall, a copy is on YouTube and in it the issue of celebrants came up and the individual freedom of other people. So to claim this is ground shifting suddenly is simply false, what happened is some have tried to spin it by pretending the concern was with churches not individual ministers.

    As to majority legal opinion saying the opposite, actually both Bassett and St Matthews agreed that churches could be prosecuted for not providing their spaces, including sacred spaces for Gay weddings if they have provided these to the public for weddings in the past, the initial opinion the HRC gave Mccroskie also admitted this candidly, the public release they made latter did not mention it, again this is all documented in the opinions theselves, where the HRC and St Matthews opinion disagreed with Bassett was over the issue of wether ministers would be married. On this latter issue, Grant Illington QC agreed with Bassett, and professor Paul Rishworth, NZs leading expert on human rights law, presented a submission on behalf of the law society which suggested Bassett was correct, again all documentable. So presenting it as though majority agreed with Louisa Wall and that only lawyers associated with family first ( a bogus argument anyway, as though a lawyer is discredited because he acts for a party) did not is again false.

    You also ignore the fact that its not just I afflicted celebrants who the ammendment does not cover, it’s also ministers from churches which do not have official stances on same sex marriage or whose churches are currently debating the issue. It also does not cover ministers who are part of a substantive dissenting voice within there denomination, and in addition to has chaotic implications for churches where liberals and conservatives are debating wether there official documents endorse or oppose same sex marriage.

    Also I find it odd that we are hearing the argument, no one has ever enforced these provisions in the HRA before, that suggest that if a law exists but has not been enforced in ages there is no problem. Interstingly that was one of the arguments used by defenders of sodomy laws a generation ago, such laws had not been enforced against consenting adults, funny how the same people who claimed such an argument was bogus then think it’s a good one now. The reality is that many defenders of same sex marriage are lacking in honesty and good faith in the discussion, trying to pass of falsehoods and arguments they know are bogus to the public. Farrar ranted and raved about freedom of speech and so on a while back when labour passed the electoral finance act, but suddenly when it’s the freedom rights of other people, that those with libertarian leanings supposedly support socialist notions of equality trump the day. Perhaps defenders of same sex marriage should try a bit harder to be not so obviously full of crap

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Queen to sign new charter backing gay rights
    The Queen will sign a new Commonwealth charter opposing discrimination suffered by women, gay people and ethnic minorities.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9920238/Queen-to-sign-new-charter-backing-gay-rights.html

    Excellent !
    That will fix this –

    Former home of Queen Mother in homosexual weddings row
    The former Highland home of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother has become embroiled in an equality row after opening its doors to Christian weddings, while refusing to hold ceremonies for homosexual or lesbian couples.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5037955/Former-home-of-Queen-Mother-in-homosexual-weddings-row.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Christians for Marriage Equality Urges MPs’ Support

    The national network Christians for Marriage Equality urges MPs to support the passage of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill into law.

    We are saddened to see some religious organisations resorting to fear mongering, misinformation and promulgating a message of exclusion that will further alienate young New Zealanders from participating in church life.

    People of faith are evenly divided on this issue. A May 2012 Colmar Brunton poll indicated that 46% of people who identified with a religion or spiritual group supported marriage equality while 47% did not agree that same sex couples should be eligible to marry. The difference is statistically insignificant.

    That’s different to what Colin Craig was claiming if religious people are evenly divided.

    The concern about use of religious premises is a red herring. Under current Human Rights law religious organisations cannot discriminate in hiring of their buildings if they make their venues available for public use. No change is being made to the control churches have over their sacred, non-public spaces.

    The provision of non-religious celebrancy is also a Human Rights issue. Celebrants are authorised by the State to perform a public function and should not be able to discriminate in this role.

    Christians for Marriage Equality urges all MPs to allow gay, lesbian and transgender New Zealanders to fully access the social, cultural, legal and spiritual right to marry.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1303/S00124/christians-for-marriage-equality-urges-mps-support.htm

    The young are far more likely to support the bill, and are more likely to be turned off by intolerance in religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    “The young are far more likely to support the bill.”

    Yes, but the young do not care about marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    Christians for marriage equality is a fringe organisation that represents no one. They are apostate Christians who need to start believing their bibles and stop pandering to the world. Such liberal churches are in decline and will soon die out.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,532 comments) says:

    Yvette, I think the Daily Mail got carried away –

    the BBC reports, “Sources close to the royal household said the Queen would not give her personal endorsement to the charter because of her apolitical status.”

    I thought it sounded a bit far-fetched to begin with…
    The charter doesn’t touch on homosexuality per se.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21732545

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Just to speculate – what proportion of people who practice religion (rather than merely identifying as spiritual or religious). If we look to overseas, where more extensive research has been done, we see that a Catholic’s propensity to support gay marriage is inversely related to his propensity to attend mass. If we take mass attendance as being a general sign of interest in religion, we can conclude with some certainty.

    What I find weird, is that your view is that a legal opinion is ipso facto tainted if it comes from a traditionalist group, but is not so tainted if it comes from something called Christians for Marriage Equality.

    I have to second Matthew Flannigan’s last point because it is simply not consistent with the rule of law for an affected minority to rely on the promised non-enforcement of a law. Nor is it consistent with the rule of law to ask that same minority to protect itself by relying on deception (including deception by omission) to ensure its conscience is not violated. This has been emphasised to you time and time again – yet you only respond with non-sequiturs and by posting large chunks of text from other sources that do not contain reasoning as much as assertion.

    You are an interesting guy, Pete George. You clearly are somewhat intelligent and sometimes make interesting comments. However, you also weirdly disinterested in logical reasoning. I can recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Logical-Guide-Thinking-ebook/dp/B000FC1TGW/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    From one young New Zealander to older New Zealanders: the cult of youth is overrated. It’s getting worse too, as the consistent message is for young people to embrace their passions and sentiments rather than tempering them with reason, scepticism and study. That is more consistent with barbarian cultures than it is with civilised ones.

    Moreover, it is quintessentially hypocritical to suggest supporting something because ‘the yoof’ are for it too. I like this blog – and I am a fan of DPF – but the weakest thing I ever read was when we advocated gay marriage because it is on ‘the right side’ of history. That is an idea that should have been buried with the end of Marxism at the end of the 20th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Mathew Flanagan

    The existing exemption protecting individual celebrants continues in the new legislation

    s.29(1) will still state that no celebrant is obliged to marry any couple, and the Human Rights Commission (who would consider any discrimination-based complaint) are clear that this means exactly what it says. There were only a very few submissions concerned about the situation of celebrants who were not church-based.

    s.29(2) has been added because quite a few churches and church-based celebrants were very anxious that the existing s.29 would not be sufficient to protect their freedom of religious expression. It’s intended to give the greatest reassurance we could to them.

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/03/05/family-first-own-goals-and-desperate-measures/#comments

    Individual ministers are still covered under Section 1, so the capacity of their church employer to require them is limited.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Nor is it consistent with the rule of law to ask that same minority to protect itself by relying on deception (including deception by omission) to ensure its conscience is not violated.

    I’ve said several times, no deception is required, just a polite “No, I’m sorry I can’t officiate at your wedding”.

    Deception by omission is an interesting one. How much does a celebrant have to reveal to avoid being accused of this?

    Should a priest have to say “I think you’re a prat and I doubt your marriage will last five years but you’re one of our lot, I like your parents because they donate regularly even though I have my suspicions about fidelity, and you fit the official criteria, so I feel obliged to marry you.”

    I thought the priest that married me was a nice bloke, but if he had any ability at reading young people getting married I’m sure he would have known we weren’t as dedicated to adhering to the church requirements for marriage that we went through the motions of covering with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    As for legal opinion as to use of spaces/premises.

    One suspects that a new element – the end of the law against denying the validity of a marriage will have an impact on the use of church (religious use premises, if not more general use halls) for a form of marriage opposed by the church.

    And “could be prosecuted” simply means a legal question needs a case of prececent clarified.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (13,573 comments) says:

    Kids a … ha ha ha

    I am ok with homo marriage, but I could not care less what a bunch of kids think who have been brain washed since birth by radically left wing teachers and media.

    “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Eighteen year olds are as entitled to an opinion and a vote as any older voter. And young people involved with political parties are more likely to give well considered thought to conscience policy than the average voter of any age.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC – as stated to PG many times over, the new section will say:

    “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize 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.”

    This raises two issues that I have yet to be satisfied on.

    1 – the scenario, as acknowledged by you, that there may exist religious, secular celebrants who do not want to perform civil marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Orville Nicholls in Saskatchewan is a text-book example. The HRC’s stated policy is that Mr Nicholls would not be requited to perform a marriage against his conscience. But who’s the HRC to give the definitive ruling on the meaning of legislation.

    Who’s to say it won’t change it’s mind later on down the track. I guess the key question here, to everyone giving assurances of religious freedom, is this: “do you think the Queen’s Bench in MJ v Nicholls made the right decision, or the wrong decision, about the competing interests?” If you think it made the right decision, I’m not sure you’re in a position to give assurances to any religious person about anything.

    2 – What about ministers of religion that represent organisation with no, or mixed, views on gay marriage. Note that the exemption relates, not to the individual minister or priest, but the “approved organisation.” For the Catholic Church, it’s a no-brainer, because you can simply open the Catechism and find out what the belief is. But what about Anglicans?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    hinamanu

    “What they are supporting are countless lives of broken children because gays can’t keep long lasting permanent relationships”

    First we are told that their marriages do not produce children, now that their failed partnerships will mean children lose one of their parents.

    The failure rate of heterosexual partnerships is no reason to oppose their marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “No, I’m sorry I can’t officiate at your wedding”.

    “Why? Are you not free that day?”

    “No – because I am a Baptist and I don’t support gay marriage. However, I am happy to put you in touch with somebody who will celebrate your legal marriage.”

    Pete – you don’t have a right to do something (or refuse to do something) if you have to hide the reason for why you are doing it – or can’t state it plainly. That shouldn’t be controversial.

    For the record, your counter example fails. I would put it to you that a Catholic priest will refuse to marry somebody like that. However, adulterers and jerks are not a protected class and so can not avail themselves of the sword of equality legislation. I don’t mean to be unkind, but that’s another example of poor reasoning.

    “And young people involved with political parties are more likely to give well considered thought to conscience policy than the average voter of any age.”

    Having known a lot of people involved in youth politics, I think that the opposite is true. The youth politician is involved in politics because they have come to firm conclusions at a very young age. As unfashionable as it is to say it, older voters are tempered by life experience. They might not be able to tell you who the senior opposition whip is, or who the revenue minister is likely to be in the next government, but I will put it to you that there are more important factors in determining what makes a good elector.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Cato

    “without limiting the generality of subsection (1)” to me means – that no celebrant is required to marry any couple – this covers all individual celebrants and continues to cover those also covered in subsection (2), thus all individuals working for organisations are protected from being coerced to marry those they do not wish to by their organisation and the organisation itself can have a policy opposed to these marriages preventing even those that would perform the marriages from doing so.

    I don’t see Canadian precedent being relevant

    1. we have subsection 1 – do they?
    2. here legislation trumps the HRA.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato – what age do you think people should get the vote in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Scott: “Christians for marriage equality is a fringe organisation that represents no one.”

    They are someone so they must represent someone. Who do you represent Scott?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato: “I would put it to you that a Catholic priest will refuse to marry somebody like that.”

    I’d be very surprised if every Catholic priest refused to marry anyone who thought there was any possibility they:
    – may not last the distance (’til death) together.
    – will not go to church every Sunday
    – had had pre-marital sex
    – would not have children
    – would not bring their children up as brainwashed Catholics
    – would send their kids only to Catholic schools

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    General Assembly [of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand] urges Parliament not to alter or confuse the meaning of marriage, which has always been about the union of male and female, and is of deep spiritual significance for New Zealanders of many faiths and cultures; and the General Assembly also asserts that – with regard to equality – the Civil Union Act (2004) already provides for clear societal recognition and legal protection of same-sex relationships.
    http://www.presbyterian.org.nz/sites/default/files/Submission_by_Presbyterian_Church.pdf

    St Andrew’s on The Terrace Presbyterian Church supports Marriage Equality 
    In response to the Presbyterian General Assembly’s decision to oppose the Marriage Amendment Bill currently before Parliament, the Minister and Community at St Andrew’s on The Terrace Presbyterian Church (Wellington) today restated their commitment to be an inclusive church, welcoming and including people of any sexual orientation or gender identity.
    St Andrew’s dissents from the Assembly’s decision to oppose marriage equality. Marriage equality is not an issue on which Presbyterians agree.
    http://www.standrews.org.nz//news/#newsitem-5

    It is proposed the act will state “a marriage celebrant from a religious body or approved organisation is not required to solemnise a marriage where it would be contrary to a genuine religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisation.”
    As can be seen from the two quotes, the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand does not agree within itself on same sex marriage, so the proposed wording of the act still does not accurately clarify the situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    PG – I don’t think you have a very good understanding of Catholicism (or religion) at all. I think that this is where your anecdote based approach to policy let’s you down. Your examples and my responses:

    – had had pre-marital sex – irrelevant;
    – will not go to church every Sunday – irrelevant; and
    – would send their kids only to Catholic schools – irrelevant

    – may not last the distance (’til death) together – highly relevant;
    – would not bring their children up as brainwashed Catholics – highly relevant (especially in a mixed marriage);
    – would not have children – highly relevant.

    When Atillia and I were getting married we had to take the marriage preparation course which – as a rule – is required before you can be married in a Catholic Church. It was extensive, involved, and hammered home what the Church required of prospective marriage partners. The fact that you may have sinned in the past (and will again) will not stop a priest from marrying you but if you manifestly do not have the right intention he will not marry you.

    As for the vote – 25 years, if I had my way.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    “Cato – what age do you think people should get the vote in New Zealand?”

    I see Cato has answered so I will now. The age for voting like drinking should be 21. DPF in my opinion obviously has a high IQ and can answer quizzes accurately and quickly but he lakes life experience like Helen Clark. Science has backed up what has been obvious to older people for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    Giving the vote to 18 year olds was a mistake. I was a great fan of Bertrand Russell before I was old enough to vote but now with hindsight not informed enough to make an informed decision.

    It is a shame Don Brash got taken in by the young know it all libertarians in ACT. I wonder if John Banks will actually vote for this sick piece of legislation for its third reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    SPC – eloquently put. I would agree with you that that is the best interpretation. However, I think that sections 6 and 19of the Bill of Rights Act – together with other canons of statute interpretation would enable a good argument against it. Basically, if Parliament intended to protect the religious rights of all celebrants then why would it specifically exempt some members of the clergy?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    the marriage preparation course which – as a rule – is required before you can be married in a Catholic Church. It was extensive, involved, and hammered home what the Church required of prospective marriage partners. The fact that you may have sinned in the past (and will again) will not stop a priest from marrying you but if you manifestly do not have the right intention he will not marry you.

    I did the Catholic marriage preparation course. Had to drive an hour each way to attend several sessions. It covered quite a bit of stuff but there was no hammering. If the priest was at all perceptive he would have known we were going through the motions – as he seemed to be. On our way home we laughed about knowing more about living together as a couple than he did, we’d had plenty of practice. We could have taught him more than he taught us.

    Our intention was solely to get married and for family reasons he and his church were convenient. I’m sure he had some awareness of this. And I’m sure we weren’t the only ones in similar situations.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird – I can’t tell if I’m being mocked.

    Contra Pete George – my position is wholly based on science: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

    In the terminology of the left, disagreeing with my position therefore means you are anti-science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ok Pete George – a Catholic priest serious about discharging his duties would not marry somebody without the right intention. Especially not one ordained in the last 25 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato – do you really think no priests are pragmatic?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    If your question is: Do you think there are priests who aren’t serious about the rules set down by the Church? Yes. But fewer and fewer of them (in relative terms).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Pete George (23,832 comments) says:

    Cato – that must mean that more priests are turning down requests to officiate at marriages? Any court cases with aggrieved couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Craig Ranapia (1,266 comments) says:

    What they are supporting are countless lives of broken children because gays can’t keep long lasting permanent relationships.

    M’kay – I’ve got seventeen-and-a-half years of standing to say you’re talking out your arse, hinamanu. But, hey, I guess what people like you and Family Last should come out of the closet and admit is that you’re rather see children get beaten, raped and neglected by the oh so perfect heterosexual abusers than raised by stable, loving same-sex couples. And for the record, you ignoramus, I fully support anyone seeking to adopt or foster children being subjected to the most rigourous and thorough background checks imaginable. EVERYONE.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. LabourDoesntWork (292 comments) says:

    Do these youths support a sixty year old Muslim man exercising his cultural right by marrying an eight year old? Do they support paleoMormons marrying more than one wife? Do they support children marrying each other? Do they support fathers marrying their daughters?

    If not, then they don’t support marriage equality. Try again, kids.

    They could always stop trying to be trendy young’uns, and leave marriage alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete, it’s late. I am tired and my growing obsession with Kiwiblog is not making me into a better or more balanced person. Reread the thread and, if you can tell me why Catholic priests are not germane to a discussion regarding the rights and responsibilities of
    independent marriage celebrants, I won’t criticise your self linking in general debate ever again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    Oh dear, youth politics attracts rather odd youth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Caldilla (1 comment) says:

    I’d say they are accurately representing a generation. Even amongst the young people of the conservative church I attended a few years ago the feeling was that gay people should have the right to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    This is not about marriage, homosexuals won’t get married. It’s about equal rights, as defined by homosexuals and faddists, a new normality.

    We will be subjected to a few celebrity “weddings”, with the husband kissing his husband. Mostly, homosexual life will otherwise continue as before: fast, furious and filthy.

    Women will find it harder and harder to get men to make a commitment, marry them.

    The narcissists will have won, but the prize will have disappeared.

    Normality will remain,still out of reach.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Ian Wishart (68 comments) says:

    For some light entertainment to round out the night:
    Craig Ranapia – THIS is your ass http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3355

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The Queen will tomorrow back an historic pledge to promote gay rights and ‘gender equality’ in one of the most controversial acts of her reign.

    Coronation Oath 1953

    Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you …
    Queen. All this I promise to do.

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
    Leviticus 20:13

    Also this from itccs.org

    1. On February 25, 2013, a lawfully constituted Common Law Court of Justice found Elizabeth Windsor, Queen of England and Head of State of Canada and its churches, guilty as charged of Crimes against Humanity in Canada and of engaging in a Criminal Conspiracy to conceal Genocide. The same verdict found Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper guilty of the same offenses.

    2. This verdict was based on irrefutable evidence, including eyewitness accounts of Elizabeth Windsor’s personal involvement in the forcible abduction and disappearance of ten children from the Kamloops Indian Residential School on October 10, 1964, while on a state visit to Canada. Ms. Windsor has never denied or refuted this charge or evidence, nor did she respond to a Public Summons issued by the Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth: I think you shoot yourself in the foot when you use material from the itccs.org website to support your position on something (anything!) – after all, these same itccs morons have this week proclaimed:
    “Canada Dissolved”…. 8O

    Yup, they’re an outfit claiming to be “…a lawfully constituted Common Law Court of Justice…” ???

    Bwahahaaaaaaaaaa….

    But on a more serious note, would you be interested in a high yield investment opportunity courtesy of a nice man in Nigeria?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Thanks for the ad hominem, Elaycee, but the Canadian genocide is very real. Ground penetrating radar showed soil dislocation consistent with a reported mass grave at the Anglican facility in Brantford, Ontario. There are no marked graves on the school grounds, but bone fragments and buttons from the children’s uniforms were recovered from the site.

    http://itccs.org/2012/06/05/the-mass-graves-at-brantford-an-update-from-the-itccs-indigenous-elders-advisory-council-and-kevin-annett/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Craig Ranapia (1,266 comments) says:

    Ian Wishart:

    I take accusations of lack of “intellectual rigour” from you about as seriously as styling advice from Lady Gaga. You seem obsessed with a twenty year old book (that wasn’t particularly well-received at the time) that’s equal parts PR/lobbying 101 and tendentious tosh as proof of some clutch-your-pearls SECRET AGENDA from The Vast Homosexual Conspiracy. If that gets you through the night, Ian, go to. But my arse still feels securely attached.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ian Wishart (68 comments) says:

    Craig, as anyone who reads The Overhauling Of Straight America in the linked article will realise…the PR/Lobbying 101 played out just like they wanted. I don’t really care who thought of it first, or whether NZ’s gay community (having moved earlier) have their noses out of joint at the attention Kirk and Madsen’s work has recieved…the reality is the gay community has constantly hidden its darker secrets, aided and abetted by mates in the media who run selected puff pieces.

    Own it. Move on,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth: Each to their own.

    But I don’t give any weight an outfit who set up a mock court to try and prosecute HM The Queen for crimes against humanity and to then declare the Sovereign State of Canada “Dissolved”…. 8O

    But as I say, each to their own.

    http://www.whatbollocks.org

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. bringbackdemocracy (429 comments) says:

    Not all youth support the redefinition of marriage.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1303/S00142/youth-against-redefining-marriage.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote