Report on flawed Civil Union Bill
30 November 2004
Report on flawed Civil Union Bill
The Report on the Civil Union Bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired by the practising homosexual Mr Tim Barnett, that has just been reported back to parliament, claims that no real “evidence” was provided by opponents of the bill that homosexuals and their supporters promoting the bill have an “agenda”. Despite the fact that the “agenda” of the “gay” activists was clearly spelt out by hundreds of submitters who opposed the Bill before the select committee, the majority report (by committee members supporting the bill) makes no mention of any of these concerns.
While it may well be hard to provide “evidence” that would satisfy members of the committee in favour of the Bill that the pro-homosexual lobby has an “agenda”, those members should have at least notified the wider parliament through its majority report, of those very real concerns expressed. Instead these members reported on how they perceived opponents of the bill “presented” themselves, a term more appropriate for a psychological assessment report on a disturbed patient(s). The Report states:
“It is there [on the Maxim Institute’s website] that homosexuals are accused of having “an agenda”. This was repeated in many submissions. It is difficult to interpret these submissions, given what presented as an abiding fear and loathing of homosexual activity, when none of these submitters presented any evidence of how homosexual law reform and the expansion of human rights grounds to include sexual orientation had personally affected them.” (p. 10)
The majority report effectively stigmatises opponents of the Bill who gave oral submissions, by suggesting that they have a deep-seated neurosis, namely “an abiding fear and loathing of homosexual activity”. The clear implication is that they are “homophobes,” a term of abuse that has been levelled at opponents of the Bill by numerous “gay” activists, including the Hon. Chris Carter. [Incidently, Tim Barnett has called “homophobia” a form of hate in an interview given in the Express magazine: (“recognition in law of the existence and absolute unacceptability of homophobia (and other forms of hate), as a motivating factor in criminal acts.”] The committee’s statutory duty was to report on the evidence, not deliver a psychological report on submitters opposed to the Bill or hint that they need some form of psychological treatment or attitudinal “values” correction.
Submitters opposed to the bill who raised very real concerns over its detrimental impact on the “public good” if enacted into law, had every right to address their very real and sincere moral concerns, and have these reported on in an unbiased manner by the committee. The careful consideration of submitters’ feelings and moral concerns are surely worthy of a matter, which is to be decided on by a “conscience vote”. A submission cannot be dismissed merely because the submitter cannot show how another piece of legislation, one that is not before the committee for assessment (the Homosexual Law Reform Act or the Human Rights Act), “had personally affected them” as the majority Report claims.
Campaign spokesperson Garnet Milne received today an e-mail from MP Tim Barnett, accusing him of compromising “a threat to the peace of our nation”, even though we only argue on the basis of Scripture and the traditional values of Society.
So what is the claimed “agenda” of the pro-homosexual lobby, presented to the select committee?
It is the deliberate attempt to normalise and make mainstream, sexual relations between same-sex individuals by means of law. This is being done in the full knowledge that most New Zealanders consider these practices immoral, unhealthy and dysfunctional. It is an exercise in social engineering that seeks to have homosexual couples treated in law as functionally equivalent to married couples and heterosexual de facto couples, thereby changing Society’s attitudes towards homosexual practice and its views on of gender relations. This will be achieved by merely replacing the terms “husband” and “wife” found in the Marriage Act with the gender neutral term “civil union partner” found in the Civil Union Bill and making the latter option open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples.
This is an insult to those in committed marriages who point out that for the state to deliberately blur in the public’s mind the distinction between marriage, with its unique character based on an opposite sex union and potential offspring from that union, same-sex relationships and de facto ones, is unacceptable and a disgraceful and unprincipled exercise in social engineering.
A clear goal of the Bill and its companion bill it to set the framework for enabling homosexuals and lesbians to secure same-sex marriage and rights to adoption. Marriage is easily attainable following the passage of both Bills because the CUB involves a prima facie discrimination under the Human Rights Act insofar as it allows two people to change their civil union into a marriage, but only if they are “otherwise eligible to marry each other”. This discriminates against those in a civil union (same-sex couples) who are not married. The CUB is set up as a stepping stone for “gays” to achieve marriage.
The homosexual agenda is comprehensive in its goals. All the rights conferred at present by the law on those who take public vows to a lifetime of commitment to loving and caring for their chosen spouse of the opposite sex, are to be conferred on all those in de facto and same-sex couples in civil unions. The deconstruction of marriage is an insidious step-by-step process. The unique and complementary roles of males and females in society living within the constraints of marital bonds is undermined by setting up a counterfeit based on an erroneous view of the true nature of gender differences and the importance of these for the bringing up of children.
What then is the “evidence” for this pro-homosexual “agenda” that the majority report claims is non-existent?
It is found in the numerous clear statements made by the homosexual lobbyists and their supporters who have driven the campaign for civil unions and “gay” marriage ever since the Human Rights legislation was expanded to include the term “sexual orientation” and throughout the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. These were quoted from in numerous submissions.
There is nothing wrong in having an agenda. What is wrong is that a select committee headed by a leading pro-homosexual lobbyist who has an investment in the success of this bill that is based on his very personal sexual lifestyle commitments, has failed in its majority report to address or state the very real concerns expressed by thousands of people opposed to the Bill.
One “Gay” Man’s Agenda
Investigate magazine has quoted the 10th May, 2001 issue of the homosexual newspaper Express which had invited Tim Barnett “to outline his objectives for the future”. Investigate lists the key points:
"We will not have a queer-friendly government forever. I believe there is a real urgency to completing the equal-rights agenda, so that moving backwards becomes totally unthinkable and untenable, so that over ensuing generations, attitudes can finally come right." "We know much more than most about what Government could do and is doing, and we have the luxury of being full-time stirrers." "As queer politicians, our mission is to deliver equal rights under the law, and ensure that the Government machine is working for our community." Under "unfinished business", Mr Barnett listed his agenda: "Recognition of our relationships, offering the same rights that marriage confers (I am currently working on a civil union model). "Access to marriage as an additional option to civil union." "Comprehensive action to make all our school environments safe for young people coming out as queer.
That should include access to counselling, protection from discrimination by staff, or fellow students – and inclusion of relevant studies in the curriculum." "Recognition in law of the existence and absolute unacceptability of homophobia (and other forms of hate), as a motivating factor in criminal acts." Investigate adds: ‘Prime Minister Helen Clark told the Express newspaper (21 June, 2001) that although she had not seen a draft of the bill, "I did encourage Tim to take up the issue."’ Tim Barnett wants a pro-homosexual curriculum taught in all our public schools and wants any and all criticism of homosexual practices or lifestyle choice to be labelled by the state as “homophobia” and dealt with as a “hate” crime. This self-serving immoral agenda must be resisted by all decent-minded New Zealanders.
Marriage, which is a civil institution, stands as a perpetual rebuke to casual, promiscuous and disordered relationships. This is why civil unions will be the gateway to homosexual ‘marriage’ (as in the Netherlands and Belgium). ‘Holy’ matrimony must be defiled (entered into and sacked by the ‘profane’) so that the rebuke its purity presents to ungodly ‘unions’ might be removed.