The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 2012, wrapped up in a misguiding term ‘marriage equality’, is an attempt to seek mandatory recognition and social approval of homophobia by levelling it with the divine sacramental covenant of all religion at all times – Marriage.
Marriage is often defined as, “Life-long relationship between a man and a woman signed and agreed to live together in mutual commitment, sharing both mind and body, perpetuating own race by procreating children.”
If the Amendment Bill passes the second reading in Parliament on February 28, it has the potential to become law.
The new legislation would open up endless court cases, with growing conflict between the gay and lesbian communities and churches.
Legal glitches
Freedom of religion is recognised under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
As it is not an absolute Right, it can be limited by new laws quoting ‘fundamental rights and freedoms of others,’
Once the Bill becomes law, there would be legal fights, as both parties would have sufficient grounds.
The Catholic Church has always been resilient and did not object to the Civil Union Bill, but it is understandable that it now objects any further attempt to undermine the purity and divinity of the sacrament of marriage.
Our lawmakers are creating legal glitches that could have long-term and far-reaching consequences. This Bill is just a persecution of religion in general and Catholics in New Zealand in particular.
The New Zealand Law society has pointed out the legal implications of the Bill, saying that priests and celebrants would be forced to conduct same sex marriages even against their interest.
If the proposed Amendment makes it incumbent on celebrants and ministers to solemnise same sex marriage or face a jail term, it would go against their human rights and religious freedom, allowing a number of organisations including the UN to intervene.
The law change with such a provision could expose religious leaders to human rights breaches.
Procreation necessary
Marriage is more than a loving relationship.
It is a one-flesh complementary union leading to procreation.
Do infertile couples have a different status and should not be able to marry?
The answer is ‘No,’ because it is not of their choice, but that of Nature.
Marriage was not defined by law or any Church, but by Nature and biology.
It was automatically designed for the ultimate goal of creating and raising children. It is a fact that biological parents give their children a better upbringing, although in many cases, step children are reared well.
Religion is a belief, peace and solace for people who believe in God, while homosexuality is a sexual preference.
Unnecessary fuss
The reality is that few same sex couples bother to get married.
Then what is this fuss about the Marriage Amendment Bill?
Could this be lobby of atheists, because less than 1% of gay people have religious belief and are bothered about the sanctity of marriage?
Gay and lesbian couples and activists always feel insecure and a solution should not conceal it with marriage, which is a more socially acceptable name.
The grounds for the Prostitution Reforms Act of 2003 was mainly about sex workers and their security, while same sex marriage is about personal choices.
Therefore, Parliament should not make legislation on personal choice.
If the argument is about the rights of a group, then Churches would also have their Rights on Marriage and its solemnisation, exercised for centuries.
Why would the New Zealand Parliament compromise their freedom and rights?
Cultural meaning
The cultural meaning of marriage is heterosexual union and the prevalent legal status. Let us keep marriage to its meaning what it has been for centuries.
Even dictionaries need to be re-written if the Bill becomes law.
Every book, document, dictionary mentions marriage as “a relationship between a man and woman.”
You cannot use the same word that totally changes the meaning for the sake of a new legislation.
It is not as simple as the gay community proclaims.
In every dictionary, gay/lesbian marriage is written specifically as same sex union.
The legal term should be gay/lesbian marriage, clearly explaining the genders involved.
What is wrong with the term ‘Civil Union’ anyway?
It is better not to hurt the religious feelings of people.
What is the interest of our parliamentarians in the personal sex choice of people, other than capitalising a few votes and coming under the media limelight?
Marriage is divine; if a relationship is just about enjoying sex and a company in a preferential way, it is not marriage.
If adopting children is the goal of the gay community, then make a move on that, rather than attacking the institution of marriage.
Australia voted out gay marriages.
Where is the need for New Zealand to consider the Amendment Bill?
If our Parliament passes the Amendment, many gay couples would want to take the Catholic Church to court for refusing to bless their marriage.
As mentioned, unless the Amendment clearly stipulates that no religious organisation or authorised body would be obliged to conduct the marriage of a gay couple, there would be problems.
Parliament should protect the interests of all the religious organisations, priests and marriage celebrants.
Harming generations
The issues for gay couples would be the safety, security and assurance of love and care for adopted children.
Every child needs a man and woman as father and mother. Those adopted by gay couples would be denied this need and would grow up in a bitter environment of insecurity and lack of maternal or paternal love.
Mothers and fathers are different in many ways and a combination of both would be ideal for the growing children.
As long as Civil Union is legislated, the divinity of marriage should be left untouched.
The marriage bill would politically polarise New Zealand and hence Parliament should not rush it through the debating chamber.
In fact, it should not be decided by 121 members of Parliament. The issue should be decided by the people directly through a Referendum.
Dr George Abraham is our South Island Correspondent based in Christchurch. The views expressed by him are not those of Indian Newslink.
