Media Release June 28th 2014
On the 17th April 2013, our Parliament in a night of insanity passed the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment bill; 77 to 44, it is a day that will go down in the history of our Parliament as a day of shame.
Parliament has a duty to uphold the common good. Marriage, consisting of one man and one woman, is the foundation stone of the common good. Parliament and the government have a duty, in fact an obligation, in justice to uphold and defend marriage as instituted by God, from those who wish to redefine it. Parliament, to their everlasting shame failed the community. The media which has a duty to uphold the common good also supported the bill and they failed the community that they claim to serve.
We were told by the homosexual lobby, that they longed for marriage equality, that Civil Unions were not going to satisfy their cry for justice and that it was a great injustice to be denied their “human right“ to marriage equality. The statistics compiled by Statistics NZ reveal a very interesting picture. The Civil Union Act came into force on 26th April, 2005. The number of same sex Civil Unions registered up to 31 March 2014, totalled 3,554 comprising, 1,454 female couples and 2,100 male couples.
The Redefinition of marriage introducing same sex marriage came into operation on 19th August, 2013. Since that date and up to the 31 March 2014, there have been 172 same sex couples who were in a Civil Union who have transferred to same sex marriage. This comprised 104 female couples and 68 male couples.
Since the 19th August 2013 and up to the 31st March 2014, there have been a total of 668 same sex marriages registered in New Zealand, comprising 385 female couples and 283 male couples. It is noted that these statistics include couples who reside overseas and are not resident in New Zealand. Statistics NZ advise that the number of overseas couples comprises two out of every five couples. It is noted that since the introduction of Civil Unions there have been 216,615 marriages, comprising one man and one woman registered in New Zealand.
An analysis of the statistics reveals that the number of New Zealand residents in a same sex marriage comprise an estimated 400 couples.
If homosexuals in a Civil Union believed that they were suffering a grave injustice in being denied marriage equality, why is it then that:
Only 172 same sex couples in a Civil Union out of the 3,554 registered in New Zealand have taken advantage of the marriage equality that we were led to believe they longed for?
Why too is it that in the nearly eight months since the introduction of same sex marriage to the 31st March 2014 there have been only an estimated 400 same sex marriages registered by residents of New Zealand? It is now clear that the vast majority of homosexuals in Civil Unions do not want marriage.
Our forbears recognised homosexuality as a disorder. Same sex marriage promotes the false idea that homosexual sexual behaviour is just as healthy and beneficial as heterosexual behaviour, it is not. Studies reveal that homosexuals are forty-four times more likely to contract AIDS. and significantly more at risk of contracting STI’s If we really cared about the health and welfare of our homosexual community we would not be endorsing same sex marriage.
No Act of Parliament can change what the Creator has established. A sodomite relationship will never be made acceptable by calling it marriage. Right to Life is committed to the repeal of this same sex marriage law.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson
With all due respect, Ken, what’s done is done. Let’s stop focusing on these side-issues and deal with the far more urgent question of the End of Life Choices Bill and the profound threat to the culture of life that legalised or decriminalised euthanasia represents.
Hello Rhona,
With due respect Rhona, the issue of same sex marriage is in our opinion not divorced from the issues of abortion and euthanasia. These issues are all intertwined and part of an attack on the culture of life.
Ezekiel 16:49 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
Ezekiel’s definition of sodomites sounds a lot more like the right wing fringe of NZ politics than ordinary gay & lesbian couples making life long commitments.
When walking past a house on fire you do not simply pass by. You do all you can to warn the occupants. While gay and lesbian couples making a lifelong commitment may seem OK according to today’s values; they are not. Right to Life is concerned not unconcerned about the future of gay and lesbian persons. we therefore do all we can to alert those persons to their predicament should they continue to choose to live in an immoral lifestyle. We do the same for those who live in immoral heterosexual relationships which include all such sexual relationships that lie outside the bounds of traditional marriage as defined by our Creator. In fact we acknowledge that there are far far more in the latter category than the former in this country.
Lesbians are homosexuals too and they are much less likely than heterosexual women or men to contract HIV. If being HIV free was a criteria for marriage, lesbians should be fine..
Research shows that committed homosexual couples who wish to marry are safer from a range of health risks if they can marry, so if Right to Life really cared about people’s health, it would support marriage equality.
Hello Kay,
Right to life is more concerned with the realities of our eternal futures than any perceived present day happiness. Spiritual health is much more important than physical or even emotional.
But what if the lesbian or gay couple in question is actively pro-life on abortion/euthanasia? After all, there is a group of pro-life homosexuals, lesbians, transgender people and others called the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians in the United States. They actively volunteer for Crisis Pregnancy Centres, donate to pro-life causes, lobby for pro-life legislation and actively defend the unborn child from abortion. Added to which, we need to be careful not to alienate lesbians and homosexuals so much as to pitch them into the malevolent arms of the euthanasia lobby, at the very time when some of them are starting to express doubts about the propriety of euthanasia.
As for “immoral” solo mums and de facto cohabiting parents, some of them are pro-life when it comes to abortion as well, despite pressure from the New Right and its apologists to end the lives of their unborn children because they’re “unfit” or ideologically incompatible. There are elements of the so-called ‘pro-family’ lobby whom I feel profoundly uneasy about.
There are two issue here Rhona. The Prolife movement is naturally grateful for support for innocent life from all creeds and beliefs. That however does not mean that we should ignore the spiritual plight of those who are in sexual same sex relationships (just as we should not ignore the danger to those who are in illicit heterosexual relationships). In both cases we can not condone such lifestyles and although they may be the reality in today’s society, that does not mean they are right. Clearly they are not and we would be complicit if we did not warn those who chose to ignore this.
Rhonda makes a good point – if Right to Life truly wants to minimise abortion & prevent euthanasia then a broad coalition is necessary that encompasses a range of faiths, ethical atheists/agnostics etc.
Seems however from this press release & “admin” replies that Right To Life is a group of fringe evangelical moralists more interested in using whatever remains of past successes to preach damnation in the afterlife than in practical, reality based actions to reduce abortions (or ethical/practical rather than moralist concerns about euthanasia for that matter)
Tying the arguments for Right to Life to a Bob McCroskie moralist agenda is a guaranteed way to ensure Right to Life remains a small, shrinking fringe group & an anathema to most Kiwis.
James,
Right to Life’s arguments against redefining marriage are on many different grounds. Our entire Western culture is based not only on Biblical standards but also on thousands of years of tradition. We change those norms without real examination of the consequences for society (and within a time frame that is alarmingly short) at our peril.
Not dear Bob McCoskrie, who is surely almost the evangelical equivalent of a Catholic saint, let me note.
sarcasm is unbecoming.
Actually, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I applaud Bob’s staunch pro-life stance on abortion and euthanasia (especially the latter!). I just disagree with him on some of the other pro-family issues that he deals with (although not others- I also agree with him about prostitution and cannabis)
Rhona,
Those in the Pro-life movement will never agree on all issues. That is just human nature.
All I will say is look at the variety of groups and organisations encompassed by the US March for Life each year- Feminists for Life, the Seamless Garment Network, Anarchists for Life, Democrats for Life, Atheists and Agnostics for Life and also the Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, despite short-sighted attempts by Nellie Grey to stop them marching. In the United Kingdom, there are a lot more active pro-life feminists, trade unionists and peace activists, as well as people from different religious faiths or none at all, than is the case here.
Frankly, sometimes I despair when I see conservative pro-lifers marching off to fight against homosexual and lesbian marriage, at a time when the sanctity of life is under attack from death-mongering advocates of euthanasia. Or foolishly ignoring the radical libertarian contingent on the political right, which is just as pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia as the far left. well, I’m a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Pax Christi, trade union and unabashed international solidarity campaign supporter, precisely because I believe in the sanctity of human life. All human life.
In maintaining narrow ideological rigidity, I fear that we are cutting our own collective throats and endangering our movement’s future.