Civil Union Bill, Sodomy & “Neofascism” Slurs
6 December 2004
Civil Union Bill, Sodomy & “Neofascism” Slurs
“Homosexual activists promoting the Civil Union Bill have been driven into a state of apoplexy over news that an amendment calling for a referendum on the Bill will be tabled in the House this week,” says spokesperson for the Campaign Against the Civil Union Bill, Rev. Garnet Milne. For example, homosexual Craig Young in an article published on the GayNZ.com website on 3 December, labels all those supporting a referendum “Referenda Rabble Rousers” and accuses them of either being neo-fascists or linked to an organisation he labels “neofascist”. Young states:
“The New Zealand League of Rights is a primary supporter of the citizens initiated referenda [CIR] movement. It disguises itself as a ‘Christian service organisation,’ and had its jackboots parked under the beds of most of New Zealand's Christian Right organisations during the mid-to-late eighties…. the binding CIR movement is an obvious stealth threat to LGBT rights… [It is] the Oldest New Zealand neofascist, white supremacist and anti-Semitic organisation.”
In a downright dishonest and bizarre response to the latest news that National’s justice spokesman Richard Worth MP is to introduce an amendment to the Civil Union Bill into parliament this week, GayNZ.com reports that National is supporting an amendment that “would effectively rubber-stamp incestuous unions”. A dishonest smear campaign like this by GayNZ.com is a sign of real desperation.
In his press release issued on 4 December, Mr Worth says “a common example [which his amendment seeks to address] is two elderly sisters who live together and are financially dependent on each other but are currently unable to register their relationship. The Civil Union Bill excludes people in this type of relationship and is inappropriate for many other similar situations.” (The amendment will do nothing to support or condone incest).
Further evidence of the extreme desperation of homosexual activists and their supporters pushing the Civil Union Bill, is the GayNZ.com news report that states:
“Newstalk ZB host Kerre Woodham has defended the Civil Union Bill, saying ‘prejudice, intolerance and an unhealthy prurient fascination with sodomy are more dangerous than people who just happen to love each other’… ‘To know in your heart of hearts that gays are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else, and yet then vote against the Civil Union Bill for contorted political reasons, is downright ugly’.”
The intended implication is that opponents of he Bill have a prurient interest in sodomy. This is perverse reasoning. It is like accusing residents living near a sewage treatment plant who complain of the stench resulting from the deliberate release of toxic sewage into waterways and the environment, of having a prurient fascination in and being obsessed with sewage each time they raise complaints or dare to express an opinion on the effects of the disease-ridden filth. Such accusations could legitimately be described as “downright ugly,” “intolerant” and based on “prejudice” and bigotry, particularly coming from those who try and deny they are responsible for the stench, disease and pollution. Furthermore they may well emanate from those with “contorted political reasons” for normalising filth and squalor. Clearly such people are indeed “dangerous” as they pose a real threat to the well-being of society and the principles of free speech. Out of their own mouths such unprincipled and intolerant people condemn themselves.
The claim that relationship recognition for same-sex couples is a “civil right” has no basis in New Zealand law. There is nothing in the Human Rights Act of Bill of Rights Act that supports the view that the state is discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians if it has not provided them with a legal basis for having their relationships recognised.
Marriage is a “civil right” for any man or woman who is entitled to marry and has found a partner of the opposite sex who also is eligible to marry, and agrees to enter such a relationship. Marriage is not a “civil right” for such a man or woman who wants to marry a loveable dog.
Marriage involves two human beings. It is not a “civil right” for such a man or woman who wants to marry a loveable partner of the same-sex, because marriage is established exclusively for persons of the opposite sex so that society’s foundational unit consists of one man united to one woman. Opposite-sex couples already in a relationship in the nature of marriage (de facto committed relationship) have the right to enter a civil union: it is called marriage. They can do this by visiting a Registry Office and going through a very simple procedure of commitment before witnesses. They can do it without any reference to religion, creed, faith or religious marriage vows.
However, because such a relationship has been foundational to societies throughout the world for thousands of years, it is understand in universal terms to entail a lifetime commitment to love, fidelity and mutual supportive friendship which may lead to the birth of children, their raising and nurturing and ongoing inter-generational bonds that allow culture, knowledge etc. to be passed on.