Louisa Wall Breaks Promise to New Zealanders

“Louisa Wall promised New Zealanders when introducing the Marriage (definition of) Amendment Bill to Parliament that no person would have to solemnise a marriage if it is against their beliefs. She is now breaking that promise, by supporting wording that will guarantee this protection to only a limited few (specifically those celebrants acting in official capacity for a church, where that church is opposed to that marriage taking place).”

“For someone who purports to oppose discrimination, it is surprising to see her willingness to discriminate against the many celebrants who choose not to be religiously affiliated. Surely all celebrants and registrars should be treated as equals in the eyes of the law,” says Mr Craig.

“Ms Wall is simply behind the times. In fact only 32% of marriages are conducted by a church or organisational celebrant, and Ms Wall should honour her promise, to ensure that the protection of belief and conscience is extended to all persons solemnising marriages. This is after all what she promised. It is naïve, and plainly wrong, to think that only those with official church status have beliefs that conflict with same sex marriage.”

Conservative Party Leader, Colin Craig, has today written to all MPs, urging them to support a revised amendment to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to ensure the rights of New Zealanders to act according to their beliefs are protected.

“It is also notable that there is also no provision to protect church buildings or facilities,” says Mr Craig. “It has now been publically acknowledged that where these facilities are available to the public, (and many churches, temples and mosques make their facilities available to the public often at little or no charge as a service to the community) they will not be able to prevent them being used for same sex marriages even where this would be against the beliefs of that Church, Temple or Mosque.”

“Sadly”, says Mr Craig, “overseas experience suggests the likely outcome is that these facilities will no longer be made available to the public, and that will be a great loss to the community."

"I don’t see why an exemption could not have been allowed as per the Crown Law advice to the Select Committee. After all the buildings are privately owned and it is not unreasonable to have rules ensuring they are used in a way consistent with the religious beliefs of those who own them.”

Supplementary Details:

The amendment supported by Ms Wall (Limited exemption only)

5A (2) 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 solemnise marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnise a marriage if solemnising that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

The amendment supported by Colin Craig (General exemption)

5A (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no person is obliged to solemnise a marriage if to do so would be contrary to that person’s beliefs or conscience.

ENDS