Correspondence with Mark Jessum

I have had correspondence from gay activists and their supporters in whom a combination of passion and anger signifies a sense of grievance.  The particular causes of grievance are indicated by one correspondent, Mark Jessum, as being "prejudice, derision, discrimination, hate and violence".  I deplore prejudice, derision, hate and violence in any circumstances.   Discrimination, on the other hand, may be justified and indeed necessary.   We all discriminate in our choices and preferences with regard to religion, politics, who we befriend, where we live, how we dress, what we eat, who we employ and so on.  Few of us would expect to cast a vote, marry, or even choose a meal indiscriminately.  The point is that we should discriminate on valid, rational and moral grounds.

Does the passion and anger of the marriage equality lobby indicate that they have a valid grievance?  Arguably yes.  Does it indicate that they have valid solutions?  It does not.  The German people laboured under a justified sense of grievance from 1919 to 1939, but their solutions, which basically involving taking over states and institutions in which they had no legitimate interest, were not constructive.    Since 1945, the Jewish people, with an even more pressing sense of grievance, have reacted in ways which have jeopardised world peace, justice and their own security.   Gays may feel justifiably aggrieved, but that does not necessarily mean that they will come up with proposals which will be of real benefit to themselves or others.

Mark Jessum is particularly concerned that I should specify the social consequences of "gay marriage".  A representative passage from his letter asks "What unforseen (sic) consequences are you talking about? You will need to be more specific. Exactly how will this happen? I am fascinated to know".   At three other points Mark asks essentially the same questions, so it is clearly  important to him to know.  My belief is that one should not pay undue attention to consequences.   Doing the morally right thing without regard to the consequences is a more sensible course of action than trying to decide what is the right thing on the basis of anticipated or presumed consequences.  Having said that, the thing about unforeseen consequences is that they are unforeseen.  Therefore I cannot give specific, definitive and comprehensive answers but I have given some indications, such as: the common perception of the marriage relationship will change as gay marriage is established within the structures of traditional marriage; the perception of homosexuality and homosexual acts will change; and the perception of normal relations between men will also change.   Homosexuals will no doubt welcome many of these changes in social perception, but the changed perceptions will in turn will give rise to real changes in behaviours and relations within marriage and relations between men in general which will further disturb the social equilibrium.  Following on from that there may  be a "backlash" from social conservatives and fundamentalist Christians who are aggrieved that the institution of marriage has been associated with a practice to which they are absolutely opposed.  As a consequence they may become more distrusting of both the state and the gay community.  By forcing religious fundamentalists and homosexual activists to effectively share the same house, you will not necessarily create an atmosphere of greater peace, tolerance and understanding.

All the above may appear to be speculative, as indeed it is, but it is well-founded speculation, consistent with historical experience (the social influence of homosexuals has waxed and waned many times over the centuries, and patterns are evident) Whatever possibilities are  raised, I fully expect that homosexuals will not accept that there will be any adverse consequences arising from moves by the state to sanctify homosexual acts and homosexual relationships.   It would be futile to spend time arguing that point with them.

Mark accuses me of "pontificating", being  "vague" and "long-winded" and engaging in  "lame arguments" and "pseudo-philosophy" and on a couple of occasions implies that because Bob McCroskie allegedly shares my views they should be automatically discredited.  Many may agree with Mark, but his tone is not suggestive of a future in which militant homosexuals and religious traditionalists engage in a constructive dialogue and come to some common accord.  Neither does the record of one of the more prominent gay politicians, Labour's Chris Carter, inspire confidence that gays will not abuse their political power.   In common with politicians of all other parties and sexual orientations, Carter rorted the parliamentary expenses system for the personal benefit of himself and his partner.   The difference was that Carter used his homosexuality as a defence against charges of wrong-doing, alleging that he was being persecuted and discriminated against on account of his sexual preference.  Homosexuals are still trading on their supposed victim status ("prejudice, derision, discrimination, hate and violence") to advance totally unreasonable and self-serving demands upon society, when the reality is that people like Chris Carter, Kevin Hague, Louisa Wall and Metiria Turei are part of an affluent, privileged and powerful political elite.  Even in disgrace, Carter was granted a sinecure post with the United Nations in Kabul, where he would no doubt feel quite at home amongst a political establishment that is widely judged to be one of the most corrupt in the world.

Below I have answered some of the more pertinent objections which Mark raises in favour of the legal redefinition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.  (GF=Geoff Fischer, MJ=Mark Jessum)

GF: The movement for gay marriage would not necessarily end with changes to the Marriage Act which permit two persons of the same gender to marry, just as it did not end with institution of civil union. It would then become entirely logical to allow incestuous marriage relationships based on "love and commitment". It would also be logical to then extend the definition of marriage to cover "polyamorous" relationships.

MJ:Actually its not logical at all and claiming it is just shows you aren't very logical. Incest is incest irrespective of whether participants are gay or straight. Its a different issue. Same with group relationships. The issue is about the legal rights of two people not group marriage. We are not on the slippery slope to damnation.

GF: Having invoked a universal principle of "equality in marriage" based on "love and commitment" Mark has to explain why he will not agree to extend those rights to incestuous couples or trios, or Muslim polygamists for example. To blandly state that "it is a different issue" is to simply evade the question.   However, not all activists are so coy.  Former Labour party Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson is reported to have said in 2008 “We must cater for the diversity we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on That’s where we’re going with social policy.”  Some gay and lesbian groups in this country have openly called for polyamory or group marriage to be recognised by the state.  Mark may say my statement "is not logical at all" but he is frankly unable to fault it because  in fact it is  his logic rather than mine.  However polygamous and incestuous marriages will not necessarily follow gay marriage, because the homosexual movement is not a principled movement.  It employs statements of principle for rhetorical purposes only, and dispenses with them when they no longer serve the interests of the homosexual community.   For example the homosexuals see the religion of Islam as a threat to their interests.  Therefore they would not willingly endorse "marriage equality" for polygamous Muslims.   They see that supporting incestuous relationships at this point in time would scuttle their chances of obtaining gay marriage.  Therefore they do not support "marriage equality" for incestuous couples.   Incidentally, despite what Marks says, there is no such thing as homosexual incest.  The commission of incest requires sexual intercourse which by definition cannot take place between two persons of the same sex.

GF: Gays and heterosexuals are differentiated by their sexual behaviour.

MJ: With regard to marriage gay people do not want to be differentiated because of sexual behaviour. That is the whole point. Every married couple are different with regard to sexuality, love and commitment.  Irrespective of that they need to receive the same protections.

GF: Homosexuals are by definition differentiated on the basis of sexual behaviour, and nothing can change that.   What homosexuals really want is to have their definitively different sexual behaviour receive the same level of social approbation as normal sexual behaviour.  They should come out and say that directly, because that is the sole aim of the "marriage equality" movement.

MJ: Public opinion is actually clearly in support (two to one in favour) and yes it is about legally protecting gay people and recognising that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality. Hardly a hidden agenda.

GF: Homosexuals do not receive any legal protection from the Marriage Amendment Bill that they would not receive from the Civil Union Act.  Legally, there has been "nothing wrong with homosexuality" since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.   Gay marriage goes a step further by sanctifying homosexuality.  I don't know of any homosexuals who are actually saying that, even though it is an irrefutable fact.

GF:  Marriage is not primarily concerned with "loving, committed and exclusive" relationships. In essence marriage is a matter of society consenting to and sanctifying the sexual union of two individuals. By establishing the institution of "gay marriage" society would really be sanctifying homosexual acts.

MJ: Actually Loving committed and exclusive and usually involving mutual sexual (sic). You're (sic) argument relies on your own skewed definition of marraige. Homosexual acts are not illegal. Its about being recognised as legal partners not about recognising the validity of the sex acts any couple might be involved in.

GF: It is ironic that those who want to radically redefine marriage can accuse those who stick to the age-old definition of having their "own skewed definition of marriage".  Marriage is concerned with the sex act.   In canon law a marriage is not final and complete (consummated) until the husband and wife have engaged in sexual intercourse.  Everyone knows that marriage is about sex, but people on both sides of the argument are shy about saying so.  Just as traditional marriage signified social approval of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, gay marriage will implicitly sanctify the full range of homosexual acts.  Homosexual acts have been moved from the "prohibited", to the "allowed", and are now about to be shifted into the "approved" category.   This bill is all about changing the public perception of homosexuality by associating it with the institution of "holy matrimony".

GF: Homosexual unions are fundamentally different to the sexual union between a man and woman. They do not produce offspring and there is no particular reason why they require any kind of legal structure. Neither is there is any reason at all why they should be included within the same legal structure as the sexual union between a man and a woman, from which they are distinguished by definition.

MJ: Lame argument. Same as Family Firsts (sic). Having children is not relevant and is not a necessary part of any marriage. There is no reason to differentiate between civil union and marriage. It is simpler and fairer to just call it marriage and make sure all couples have the same basic reights and obligations. Marriage is primarily a legal partnership and not reluiant (sic) on any church or religious involvement.

GF: "Having children" is not a necessary part of any marriage, but offspring are a normal consequence of marriage, and a physical impossibility within any same sex relationship.   That is but one of the respects in which the husband and wife relationship is definitively distinct from the homosexual relationship, it is one good reason not to consider the two relationships as identical, and  to differentiate between a homosexual civil union and a marriage.  It may be simple to call civil union "marriage", just as it may be simple to just call  cats and dogs "animals".   However to do so is to portray two very different relationships as equivalent and of the same character.  Marriage is primarily a legal partnership in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of those thousands who continue to marry in a church it is primarily a spiritual relationship, and the religious involvement remains  crucial, as it has been for millennia.  Civil union on the other hand is a strictly legal and secular relationship, with no religious history or content.  The two institutions should not be confabulated.   When the homosexuals demanded civil union, barely eight years ago, they assured us that marriage and civil union would remain separate and distinct.   They lied to us then, and they are lying to us now.
 

Full texts of correspondence:

Dear Mr Fischer

To be really honest with you I find what you wrote on your website all long winded and even after reading it I still don't know exactly what all these apparently dire unintended consequences are for contemporary New Zealand society.  If you write succinct and specific arguments then sure I'll respond but until I know what you really think I can't really be expected to wade
through all the broad (read vague) historical statements and philosophical pontificating.

Why not just say very clearly what you think? Why not be up front instead of dressing it all up in pseudo-philosophy?  Explain your reasoning if you like but at least say clearly what you think.  It seems to me you are not saying anything particularly different from Bob McCroskie. You are just using more words to say the same things.

I am not really interested in attitudes to homosexuality during the chinese and cuban revolutions or ideas that King James might have been gay . That is all just irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am interested in New Zealand here and now and how gay people have been treated over the last 60 years.  That young people use the word gay as an insult is not a backlash or anything new. They are just a continuation of the same problem (with a different slang word) and one more reason to carry on sanctioning gay relationships and pushing for a clear legal statement that all discrimination is unacceptable.

So far you have made statements like:
My purpose in criticising the Marriage Amendment bill is not to "protect gay people from even more prejudice, derision, discrimination, hate and violence" even though I would actually wish to see prejudice, derision, hate and violence completely eradicated from our society. It is to warn of the unintended and unforeseen consequences for society in general of an ill-conceived piece of legislation.

So in principle you want these things eradicated but pragmatically you don't think it will work so you do not support it? What unforseen consequences are you talking about?You will need to be more specific. Exactly how will this happen? I am fascinated to know.

The campaign has been driven by a small number of gay activists, the mass media and career politicians who are out of touch (or if one prefers "ahead of") the attitudes of the general public. The hidden item on the gay marriage agenda is the desire to cap off the legalisation of homosexuality with the secular sanctification of homosexual acts through the institution of gay marriage.

Public opinion is actually clearly in support (two to one in favour) and yes it is about legally protecting gay people and recognising that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality. Hardly a hidden agenda. This is basically the same old argument  that this is just a fringe issue - Yes the lobbing and campaigning (like all issues) is being driven by committed activists. In this case a large number of gay and human rights activists.  Calling supporters in parliament  'career politicians' is just cynical and pejorative. Louisa Wall has been in parliament four years. Much longer 'Career politicians' are against it.

The movement for gay marriage would not necessarily end with changes to the Marriage Act which permit two persons of the same gender to marry, just as it did not end with institution of civil union. It would then become entirely logical to allow incestuous marriage relationships based on "love and commitment". It would also be logical to then extend the definition of marriage to cover "polyamorous" relationships.

Bob McCroskie says the same. Actually its not logical at all and claiming it is just shows you aren't very logical. Incest is incest irrespective of whether participants are gay or straight. Its a different issue. Same with group relationships. The issue is about the legal rights of two people not group marriage. We are not on the slippery slope to damnation.

The reality, which even the gay marriage advocates acknowledge, is that gay marriage will have ramifications for traditionally married couples and for society at large such as?

Good ramifications or bad?

gay marriage, when seen as a liberal secular takeover or invasion of religious institutions, may give fresh impetus to the thing which it is ostensibly designed to reduce, namely popular  prejudice against homosexuals and homosexuality.

Please give specific examples. Not just vague talk of minority backlash but actually 'fresh impetus'. New legal sanctions? increased gay suicide? increasing amounts of hate crimes? increases in job and housing discrimination? Is a possible minority backlash a reason to oppose it? Are you trying to protect gay people or just looking for something that makes you look more tolerant than you are?

at some point the logic of movements based on a subjective estimation of rights will carry them a step too far for the sympathy and tolerance of the general public.

A step too far? Okay so what will happen? What are you saying?

the failure of the institutions of state to properly consider the moral implications and potential consequences of radical changes to the laws on marriage, divorce and prostitution brings serious reproach upon the New Zealand system of government.

What are the moral implications?Why are they so radical changes? Its not particularly radical at all. That is just what opponents say who want to turn it into a huge upheaval. Clarifying and extending an existing law is hardly radical

Gays and heterosexuals are differentiated by their sexual behaviour. Therefore they can only be deemed equal to each other in respect of those things which they have in common. They cannot be considered equal to each other in sexual union, and marriage, as I will argue, is fundamentally concerned with sexual union. Not with love, or commitment or any of those other things that we quite properly associate with marriage, but with sexual union.

With regard to marriage gay people do not want to be differentiated because of sexual behaviour. That is the whole point. Every married couple are different with regard to sexuality, love and commitment.  Irrespective of that they need to receive the same protections.

The reason is simple: marriage is not primarily concerned with "loving, committed and exclusive" relationships. In essence it is a matter of society consenting to and sanctifying the sexual union of two individuals. By establishing the institution of "gay marriage" society would really be sanctifying homosexual acts.

Actually Loving committed and exclusive and usually involving mutual sexual. You're argument relies on your own skewed definition of marraige. Homosexual acts are not illegal. Its about being recognised as legal partners not about recognising the validity of the sex acts any couple might be involved in.

The unique character of the marriage relationship has given rise to the unique institution of legal marriage, blessed by the church and approved by the state. Homosexual unions, however, are fundamentally different to the sexual union between a man and woman. They do not produce offspring and there is no particular reason why they require any kind of legal structure. Neither is there is any reason at all why they should be included within the same legal structure as the sexual union between a man and a woman, from which they are distinguished by definition.

Lame argument. Same as Family Firsts. Having children is not relevant and is not a necessary part of any marriage. There is no reason to differentiate between civil union and marriage. It is simpler and fairer to just call it marriage and make sure all couples have the same basic reights and obligations. Marriage is primarily a legal partnership and not reluiant on any church or religious involvement.

the gay community may gain considerable influence within the institutions of state, as it has, and it can promote legislation, but it should proceed with caution.  It may go further than the general public are prepared to be taken, and it may suffer by association with a political system which is already viewed with a great deal of cynicism and distrust.

There is no comprehensive 'Gay community' beyond the collective need to gain legal recognition and protection. Beyond that gay people range across the political spectrum. Gay people have no greater influence than any other group. They seek to influence policy that affects them. This is just the same old 'gay cabal' argument put forward by old laborites. Lindsay Perigo has little in common with Kevin Hague.

Ms Wall claims that a gay person is not free to take out a marriage license, but as the law now stands he or she is free to do exactly that.

Then why has anyone who has tried it been refused?

Gay marriage will be just another shovelful of dirt out of the great black hole into which the regime is digging itself.

So democracy in New Zealand will collapse, in part, because gay couples will be legalaly recognised and for example entitled to each others private superannuation?  Sorry but I can't see anything original in what you say. Its the same old arguments dressed up in longer sentences and similar vague claims.

Mark Jessum
 
 

On 29/11/2012 13:17, Geoff Fischer wrote:

Dear Mark

I have not made and will not be making a submission to parliament on the Marriage Amendment bill.  My reason for not doing so is that parliament will only admit members who will pledge allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, and I will not accept the sovereign political authority of any institution which discriminates in such a manner against those of a different political or
religious persuasion.  That refusal extends to not voting in parliamentary elections, and not making submissions to parliamentary committees.

The Marriage Amendment Bill may initially give "fresh impetus" to prejudice from "people who dig in and extend their prejudice" but it will not necessarily stop there.  You may be aware of how prejudice against homosexuals has both waxed and waned over the centuries, and prejudice tends to increase when there is a perception that the homosexual community has advanced its own interests at the expense of the wider community.  Anger against "the king's favorites" (a euphemism for homosexual partners) often associated itself with prejudice against homosexuals in general, and a similar reaction could take place in our times.   I remember my own sons learning from their friends at school to use the word gay to refer to something that was fey, unimpressive, or even contemptible.  (I lost no time in explaining to them why it was inappropriate to use the word "gay" in that way - a lesson which Prime Minister John Key apparently has yet to learn).  The point is that the gay community may gain considerable influence within the institutions of state, as it has, and it can promote legislation, but it should proceed with caution.  It may go further than the general public are prepared to be taken, and it may suffer by association with a political system which is already viewed with a great deal of cynicism and distrust.

My purpose in criticising the Marriage Amendment bill is not to "protect gay people from even more prejudice, derision, discrimination, hate and violence" even though I would actually wish to see prejudice, derision, hate and violence completely eradicated from our society.   It is to warn of the unintended and unforeseen consequences for society in general of an
ill-conceived piece of legislation.

As I intimated above, it is not a matter of "not being bothered" to make a submission to parliament.  I have made my views available to all, and I am willing to accept and post submissions, criticism and comment from anyone, including those 120 members of parliament who do not accept that I also should be entitled to the same political rights as any other citizen.

Please let me know if you wish to have your letter posted on the my website - I would be happy to oblige.

Regards
Geoff Fischer

PS  In response to your request I have attached some of my writings on the subject FYI

Dear Mr Fischer

I read your posting on the liberal churches. You wrote in  your website that "In this particular debate it is the liberals who are prejudiced, because they have not allowed the facts to emerge, or the arguments to be made public" and claimed that this change "may give fresh impetus to the thing which it is ostensibly designed to reduce, namely popular prejudice against homosexuals and homosexuality". I am presuming you made a submission on the bill to parliament? so the facts could emerge and the arguments made public? I would like to know how this bill will give a fresh impetus to prejudice against gay people. I don't mean backlash from people who dig in and entrench their prejudice. I am talking about an increase in "popular prejudice". Are you saying you oppose gay marriage because you want to protect gay people from even more prejudice, derision, discrimination, hate and violence? If so that is very noble of you. You are a true friend of the gay community helping to overcome centuries of entrenched inequality. Could you post the submission you made on the bill?

Or the submission you would have made if you hadn't decided not to bother?

Thank you,

Mark Jessum