Open Petition to A.G to ‘strike down’ flawed Marriage Bill
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
Open Petition to Attorney-General to ‘strike down’ flawed Marriage Bill
At its recent AGM chaired by Society President, Kapiti Coast businessman John Mills, Society members made a renewed commitment to oppose the legally flawed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill which it believes contains provisions that are in serious conflict with the anti-discrimination provisions in s. 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 [BOR]. In an Open Petition sent to the Attorney-General today from its national executive committee representing all its members, it has called on him to complete an urgent section 7 Bill of Rights reappraisal of the bill, in the light of changes made to the bill during the select committee process. (The SPCS made a written and oral submission to the Committee).
The petition contains a supporting document which details where Louisa Wall's legally flawed bill discriminates against people based on their married status under the Marriage Act 1955 as well as discriminates against those with sincere religious beliefs relating to their faith-based belief in marriage as limited to one man and one woman - ordained by God. Both categories - married status and religious belief - are specified grounds in s. 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 [HRA] for protection from discrimination under s. 19 of BOR.
Robust discussion at the SPCS AGM, led to members concluding that the concept of "same-sex marriage" (SSM) is an oxymoron (A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side). The Society contends that at heart the bill is based on a meaningless concept (SSM) and that the Attorney-General has a legal and moral duty to inform parliament that the bill is in direct conflict with BOR on two counts and is legally flawed as it is based on a meaningless concept (SSM).
The Petition to the Attorney-General dated 22 March 2012 commences:
We contend that under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 you have a legal (and moral) duty to report to Parliament that certain provisions in the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill are inconsistent with this Act. In particular the attempt to insert into the Marriage Act 1955 a definition of marriage that would allow same-sex couples to obtain a marriage licence and get married by a marriage celebrant and significant changes to the bill made by the Government Administration Committee that would see the terms “husband” and “wife” removed from a number of pieces of related legislation. These provisions discriminate against married (heterosexual) couples by the deeply flawed attempt to bring together (heterosexual) marriage and same-sex marriage (SSM) in law, under the same category of relationship (marriage), ignoring the fundamental differences between them. The fundamental freedom and human rights of married heterosexual couples (and their natural families) to be recognised and treated by the State as a distinct relationship category, based on the widely accepted and universal understanding of marriage such as that found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPR), is negated when the SSM is merged in law with traditional marriage. We contend there is no justification for this discrimination against married couples. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron*. In contrast (heterosexual) traditional marriage involving a husband and a wife, is an institution the State is duty-bound by international agreements to uphold and protect. It derives its real and unique meaning based on the biological fact that the human species is defined by the complementarity and interdependence of the two sexes, a union of opposites (male and female) drawn together by a commitment based on love, and the ideal basis (potentially) for procreation and providing the ideal two-parent relationship context in which to found a natural family. Parliament has no right to approve a bill which is based on the oxymoron* “same-sex marriage”.
For the complete document and conclusions visit: