Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Labour MP’s ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill

MEDIA RELEASE
20 November 2012
Labour MP’s ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill
Family First NZ has released a legal opinion which calls into question the validity of the assurances given in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill by the Bill’s author Louisa Wall, and also points out the legal incorrectness of statements made to a newspaper by Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel.

An initial legal opinion (dated 27 Aug 2012) obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett before the 1st Reading in Parliament stated that marriage celebrants (including church ministers) exercising their public function will be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and acting unlawfully if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants by reason of the same sex of a couple seeking to be married.

On 29 August 2012 in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall stated that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has.

“The New Zealand Law Society submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has now questioned the validity of that assurance given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel also accused Family First NZ of ‘bearing false witness’ and ‘scaremongering’ when we raised concerns about the effect of the Bill, but our updated legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has labeled Chauvel’s statements about the effects of the Bill as ‘legally incorrect‘, ‘imprecise’ and confusing some of the issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“It appears Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel misunderstand the legal implications of the Bill. The public and other politicians are not hearing the full story. The bill should be voted down. The social and legal ramifications are too great.”

Key Points of Legal Opinion - dated 19 November 2012
• s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant (including a church minister who is a celebrant) to refuse to perform a same sex marriage.
• The assurance given by Louisa Wall in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Bill, that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has, is legally wrong.
• If the Bill is passed, then a marriage celebrant (and any church minister in his or her capacity as a marriage celebrant) will not be able lawfully to decline to marry a couple by reason that the couple are of the same sex.
• Statements made by Charles Chauvel confuse the performance of a religious ceremony with the public function of a marriage celebrant.
• If a religious body or group chooses to supply its premises for hire to the public (whether ‘consecrated’ or ‘non-consecrated space’, whether ‘sanctified’ or ‘non-sanctified space’ within a church, mosque, synagogue, tabernacle or temple), then it cannot refuse to do so by reason of any prohibited ground of discrimination in s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
• It is not ‘scaremongering’ to state the law.
ENDS

DOWNLOAD FULL LEGAL OPINION (dated 19 November 2012)


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Law Commission: Review Of Search And Surveillance Act Begins

“For example, the Act was drafted before cloud-based storage of data was commonplace. In the light of these and other developments, the Commission will be examining whether the investigative powers in the Act are sufficient for law enforcement purposes. We will also consider whether the safeguards that surround those processes are adequate.” More>>

ALSO:

Houses, Campers And Cops: LGNZ Media Briefing

At their quarterly media briefing today Local Government New Zealand addressed areas where local authorities are feeling pressure and outlined their approach for the upcoming local body elections in September-October. More>>

ALSO:

17 Year Sentences In Baby Moko Case: Attorney General On Plea Bargain

“The Crown’s decisions in this case, including the decision to accept the manslaughter pleas, were motivated by the need to secure convictions for this horrendous killing and to avoid the significant risk that either of the defendants could escape such a conviction because of evidential issues.” More>>

ALSO:

As Govt Cuts Lobby Anti-Smoking Group Funds: On The Nation - Plain Packaging Debate

Imperial Tobacco leaves open possibility of law suit against New Zealand government if plain packaging is introduced, as planned. Says it’s a “last resort” but “of course we will defend the right to use our brands”. More>>

ALSO:

No Rail For New Harbour Crossing: National Giving Up On Rail In Auckland

The National Government’s decision to scrap two planned rail lines in Auckland shows it is giving up on a city-wide rail network in Auckland, and on thousands of commuters who sit in traffic jams every single day, the Green Party said today. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Ombudsman’s Verdict On Paula Rebstock And Ian Rennie

Unfortunately, the brave and damning report by Ombudsman Ron Paterson on the “flawed” and “unfair” inquiry conducted by Dame Paula Rebstock into events at MFAT pulls back the veil on a far wider issue. More>>

ALSO:

Charities' Report: Stressed Families - Overstretched Services

“Like so many of the whānau and families they serve social service organisations are under huge financial stress. The support demanded from desperate people in communities is far outreaching the resources available.” More>>

ALSO:

Detention: Wellingtonians Protest Treatment Of Refugees

Peace Action Wellington (PAW) and around 50 Wellingtonians blockaded the Australian High Commission, creating a symbolic detention centre to protest the Australian Government's policy of mandatory offshore detention for refugees and asylum seekers. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news