Right to Life has just been made aware of an attack on the highly respected LifeSiteNews website, one of the world’s most informative and visited websites on life issues. We received this information today 28th October 2018. Right to Life relies on websites like this one, to inform of important life issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the attack on traditional values. Along with FB and Twitter shutting down a number of Pro-Life pages recently, we are beginning to see the sort of attack on free speech which is described below. Here is the email we received from LifeSite. Make your own mind up about whether censorship of those who express a view inconsistent with the current liberal paradigm has gone up a notch. So much for Tolerance eh? Right to Life believes we are going to see more and more of this sort of determined attempt to suppress the truth. Reads… [Read more…]
The following is by Ben Johnson, the US Bureau Chief at LifeSiteNews.com on 23rd June 2014 and is a re-post from that website.
The Left has waged a war of no quarter against the unborn, the institution of marriage, freedom of conscience, and the standards of civilization and tradition. With the talk of politicians “evolving” to support same-sex “marriage,” it is now waging a war against science and language, as well.
The use of that word, “evolved” in the public debate of homosexuality has become ubiquitous. President Obama started the trend in by hinting that his views on marriage redefinition might “evolve” just before the 2010 elections. Since then numerous public figures including Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge have said they have “evolved.” Secular progressives use that syntax as a subtle form of self-congratulation, designed to contrast themselves with the Bible-thumping hayseeds hesitant to redefine an institution that predates written history. [Read more…]
The following post is from a media release from FamilyVoice Australia on 23 April 2014
“Religious freedom is under threat in Victoria, now that a court ruling has denied a Christian-run camp its right to maintain biblical standards of conduct on its premises,” FamilyVoice state officer Peter Stevens said today.
Jesus taught that all forms of sexual intercourse outside marriage, (including homosexual activity) is evil Matthew 15:19
The Victorian Court of Appeal recently dismissed an Appeal from a VCAT decision in 2010 which ruled that Christian Youth Camps had discriminated against Cobaw, a group for same-sex attracted youth, in the provision of accommodation.
Lawyers for the organisation told the Court of Appeal Mr Rowe did not refuse the group because their members were homosexual, but because the group would promote a message that it is okay to have sex outside marriage.
The Christian group’s appeal was dimissed by a majority of 2:1, with Justice Robert Redlich dissenting.
Justice Redlich said that section 77 of the Equal Opportunity Act is an exemption available to a corporation and that CYC and its employee Mark Rowe, who refused the booking, were taking steps necessary to comply with their genuine religious beliefs that promotion of homosexuality was wrong.
In the original 2010 ruling, the Tribunal ruled that CYC’s biblical beliefs about marriage, sexual relationships or homosexuality are not doctrines of the Christian religion. “This is an extraordinary denial of the facts,” Pastor Stevens said.
Media Release Sunday 25th Aug 2013
Right to Life is disappointed at the government’s shameful promotion of New Zealand as an international tourist destination for homosexual couples to obtain a marriage licence.
Parliament gave great offence to God by defying Him and arrogantly passing without authority the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment bill. Further offence is given to God by the celebration and promotion of same sex marriage In New Zealand.
It is reported in the media that Tourism NZ hosted a same sex marriage at Te Papa. A spokesperson for Tourism NZ claimed that there were hopes of boosting foreign “weddings” by 1,000. It is understood that the government paid for eight guests and for the celebrations. In addition to this promotion a lesbian couple had their ceremony on board a flight from Queenstown after winning a competition run by our national carrier, Air New Zealand in which the government has the major shareholding. The actions of Tourism NZ and Air New Zealand are bringing the good name of New Zealand into disrepute. Right to Life requests that to protect the good name of New Zealand and the good name of Air New Zealand, that the government use its influence to stop any further promotions of New Zealand as a destination for same sex marriages.
These promotions are part of the agenda of the homosexual lobby to have the community accept homosexual relationships as normal, to be celebrated and promoted. The majority of New Zealanders who uphold what has been known since the dawn of civilisation, that the institution of marriage is exclusively for one man and one woman are offended by these promotions. They will never accept same sex marriages as being acceptable or normal. They are determined to oppose this farcical law by refusing to accept it, to co-operate with it and will not rest until this unjust law is repealed from our statutes.
Right to Life,
The following article is by By Brandon Vogt from the OSV Newsweekly website. Reads..
Examining the most common arguments for redefining marital unions …and understanding why they are flawed
Perhaps no issue is more nerve-wracking today than same-sex marriage. It’s a magnet for controversy, evoking strong reactions from those on either side of the debate. But beneath all the fiery passion and rhetoric, there are real arguments to evaluate. In this article, we’ll examine the 10 most common ones made in favor of same-sex marriage, many of which you’ve probably heard before. By pointing out the flaws, we’ll show how each argument ultimately comes up short.
However, before we begin, let’s note a few things. First, this article concerns civil marriage — marriage as defined and promoted by the state. It doesn’t deal with the Church’s sacramental understanding, although the two often overlap. Second, the responses to the arguments are emphatically nonreligious. They don’t depend on any sacred text or divine revelation. They’re based on reason, philosophy, biology and history. Third, this article only refutes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It doesn’t touch upon the many positive arguments supporting traditional marriage.
One more note: This is not an attack on people with same-sex attractions. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead, this article is a rational look at whether civil marriage, an institution that touches all people and cultures, should be redefined.
The passing of the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment bill marks a day of shame in the history of New Zealand. Parliament had a duty to defend marriage, to their lasting shame they failed to do so.
All authority comes from God, He has not given Parliament the authority to redefine marriage. In an astounding challenge to the authority of God, Parliament has assumed the right to seek to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples.
God, the author of life, has, for the happiness of mankind and the procreation of the human race instituted marriage as being exclusively for one man and one woman. God has created man for woman and woman for man. Only a man can make a woman a wife and a mother and only a woman can make a man a husband and a father. Same sex marriage is not marriage, it will never be marriage, it is a cruel charade.
Mankind has always known these fundamental truths and no Act of Parliament can change the institution of marriage which God in His wisdom and love has bestowed on us.
The following letter has been posted (NZ Post mail) to all NZ MP’s
Parliament will debate the third reading of the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment bill on Wednesday 17 April to include same sex couples. Should Parliament pass this controversial and socially destructive bill it will threaten religious freedom in New Zealand.
Labour MP, Louisa Wall told Parliament when she introduced her bill “What my Bill does not do is 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 bill that was passed by the select committee provides no such protection for the conscience. Parliament passed the bill at its second reading with no such protection. They have confirmed that the same-sex marriage bill will not protect the consciences of those administering places of faith. They will be legally obliged to host ‘same-sex weddings’ if their facilities are available to the general public. There is no legal protection for the consciences of marriage registrars and marriage celebrants who are not part of approved mainline churches or approved organizations, they will be unable to refuse a request to marry a same-sex couple by reason of the same-sex of the couple.
This Bill will provide a culture of coercion whereby celebrants or registrars that don’t fall within the exemptions will not be lawfully able to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage by reason of the same-sex of the couple. This proposed Select Committee amendment undercuts Louisa Wall’s assurances to Parliament and provides a much narrower exemption than that provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which states that everybody has the right of freedom of religion and belief, and the right to manifest that belief or view.
The New Zealand parliament looks set to pass legislation which will equate homosexual marriage with traditional marriage. In doing so we a country are sailing into unchartered waters.
The Parliamentary Select Committee who examined Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill took the opportunity to add amendments. Notably it made an amendment to include protection of freedoms of belief and expression for individual church ministers whose religious organisations have not yet formalised a view on whether or not to accept same-sex marriage, or where the church organisation has refused to adopt an official position on the issue. However the amendment does not broaden out this individual right to civil celebrants and registrars. The argument was that Civil celebrants and registrars should not have this protection, because they are performing a paid, public service.
It is very notable that most marriages in New Zealand fall under this latter category and it is great concern that civil celebrants and registrars will be compelled under this Bill if enacted to marry same sex couples even when they may not wish to do so. On Wednesday 27th March in Parliament a number of MP’s put forward amendments which would have protected the rights of these celebrants. Unlike the Parliamentary Select Committee amendments which were accepted, these amendments were soundly voted down.
4 February 2013
Marriage Bill – Democracy Denied
Right to Life supports the call of Family First for more time to hear submissions on the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment Bill. It is of the utmost importance that those 200 citizens who have made a written submission with a request to make an oral submission be heard.
It is deplorable that this highly controversial Bill is being rushed through the select Committee with unseemly haste. Mankind has upheld the institution of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman since the beginning of recorded civilisation more that 12,000 years ago. Man has always recognised that man was made for woman and woman for man. Our ancestors who dwelt in caves knew this. Why is it then that there are amongst us those who would challenge this fundamental institution.
Why after 12,000 years, has the government decided that we should deal with unseemly haste, the private member’s Bill of Labour List Member of Parliament, Louisa Wall. Her Bill seeks to redefine marriage to include marriage between two men and marriage between two women. This has never been marriage, it is not marriage and it will never ever be marriage.