24 Questions and Answers on “Gay marriage”

1. Is the movement for gay liberation similar to the movement for black liberation?

No.  This claim is misleading, untrue, and offensive to the black community in the United States.  Black people in the United States were guided by their faith in God to assert their right to participate in society on an equal basis. Homosexual politicians in New Zealand are demanding that the definition of marriage be changed so as to sanctify the homosexual act.  There is no comparison between the two movements.

2. Is Louisa Wall really “New Zealand's Rosa Parks”?

Rosa Parks was the black woman who asserted the right of black people to sit in the front seats of public buses.  Louisa Wall is not the subject of discrimination, and she does not have to travel at the back of the bus.   She is a one of 120 privileged members of the New Zealand Parliament who decide whether the bus should make a U-turn on a crowded motorway.  Four and  a half million other New Zealanders are mere tax-paying passengers who have no direct say in their own fate.

3. Do gays have the right to marry?

Under the present law gays have the same rights to marry as any other person.  Gays also have the legal right to enter into a "Civil Union" which is specifically designed to give homosexual relationships a legal basis.

4. Is a marriage license “the only license which a gay couple do not have a right to take out?”

The “marriage license” is an anachronism.   Properly speaking a license confers a right to do what one could not otherwise do, such as drive a car, use firearms or catch fish.  It is issued on the assumption that anyone who meets certain specified requirements shall not be denied a license.  A marriage license allows a man and woman to live together as husband and wife and to have sexual intercourse which they may also do without a license under existing law.   The “marriage license” as it is today merely confers the approbation of church and state upon a sexual relationship between a husband and wife.   It does not confer social approbation upon any other relationship or acts.   A license to shoot ducks does not confer the right to shoot kiwi, and a person who wants to shoot kiwi cannot claim to be the victim of discrimination.  A license serves a single purpose, and different relationships or acts will require licenses of a different kind.

5. Is gay marriage the final demand that we will hear from gay politicians?

Almost certainly not.  The more that is given to the homosexual lobby, they more they demand.  First they wanted toleration through non-enforcement of the law against homosexual acts.  Then they wanted decriminalisation of the homosexual act.  After that, they demanded state promotion of homosexuality as a socially acceptable lifestyle.  Then they wanted, and were granted, “Civil Union”.  Now they are demanding “gay marriage”. They have given notice that the next item on their agenda is legalisation of group marriage or "polyamory”.

6. Will the amended Marriage Act be non-discriminatory?

The proposed amendment to the Marriage Act “discriminates” against siblings and others who may wish to marry blood relatives.  The proponents of gay marriage should be made to explain why they accept “discrimination” against incestuous couples, while rejecting “discrimination” against homosexual couples.

7. Have the non-homosexual politicians really treated this as a "conscience" issue?

Unfortunately not.  The homosexual activist and National Party insider David Farrar has revealed how he  used political intimidation and blackmail to push wavering National members of parliament into supporting the “gay marriage” legislation.

8. Has there been a free and fair debate over gay marriage?

No.  The mass media has given prominence to the arguments in favour of gay marriage and has sidelined the arguments against.  Pro-marriage websites like FamilyFirst have been closed down by "denial of service" attacks by homosexual activists

9. Will gay marriage have an adverse impact on proper marriage?

Yes.   Because the distinctions between husband and wife, mother and father will not exist in gay marriages, those particular roles will become devalued in all marriages.   Some married men, when considering the "gay marriage" of the couple next door may lose sight of their special obligations as providers and protectors of the family, and the special contribution made to the marriage by their wives in the role of mothers.  The unique characteristics of the traditional marriage relationship will be undermined by the false presumption that it is identical in nature to a homosexual relationship.

10. Is gay marriage only an issue for those who will be personally directly affected?

The glib rejoinder "If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex"  falsely implies that gay marriage will only affect those who enter into same sex marriages.  The reality is that gay marriage will have wide ramifications and consequences for society at large.
"No man is an island".    It is both a fallacy and a dereliction of moral duty to suppose that which does not directly or immediately affect us as individuals can be safely ignored.

11. Is marriage "evolving"?

Marriage is certainly changing, but  those changes, most of which have come through the agency of the state, have had mixed effects.   Generally they have increased the "freedom" of individuals while eroding the rights and obligations of marriage partners  through reforms such as "no fault divorce".

12. Is evolution necessarily a good thing?

Even though "evolution" is a tenet of faith for Darwinists and secular liberals, there are many examples in history where societies and political institutions have degenerated, declined into irrelevance, or torn themselves apart as a result of so-called "evolutionary" changes.

13. Is marriage in need of “definition”?

Ms Wall's bill is titled "Definition of Marriage" but marriage has been defined in the English language for millennia, and the law has always operated in accordance with that definition.

14. Does parliament have a right to redefine marriage in such a way as to change the meaning of the word in the English language?

Parliament has a right to make law, but  language belongs to the people, and it is both presumptuous and dangerous for parliament to make edicts which seek to change the meanings of words.

15. Does parliament have a right to alter the marriage institution?

The institution of marriage developed among the people and was solemnized by the church.  The state has become involved in the marriage institution, through the Marriage Act, ostensibly to maintain coherence and consistency in the rules of marriage after the church had separated into various denominations, but that does not give the state the right to effectively destroy an institution which was not of its own making.

16. Why does Louisa Wall's bill provide that a man may marry a man, except that  a man may not marry his brother?

That critical exception to the supposed overarching principle of "marriage equality" for all is there because Louisa Wall knows  and implicitly acknowledges that carnal relations between brothers violate  the fraternal relationship.   That is why her bill says that brothers may not marry.

17. How does homosexuality affect relationships between men in general?

Men can be either brothers to, or lovers of, other men.  They cannot be both, because the psychology of brotherhood, and the psychology of carnal desire are fundamentally opposed.  The guiding principle of brotherhood is the principle of "fairness" while the lover is motivated by the desire to be a "favorite" and to make "favorites". It is arguably that latter motivation which makes gays stand out in the arts in general and the performing arts in particular.  It has also given gays an advantage in the political realm in certain historical epochs, such as our own, where the ability to make an impression, and to win affection, count for more than quiet solid service in the interests of "fairness".  Those who believe in the brotherhood of man as a tenet of faith, and those who opt for a fair society rather than one dominated by celebrity and favoritism, are less willing to accept sexual relations between men, and all the consequences which flow from those relations.

18. Does it make a difference that some homosexual relationships are close, faithful and enduring while some heterosexual relationships are short-lived and acrimonious?

This is not a contest of virtue.  It is a debate which must centre on the social consequences of gay marriage, and not on the moral probity of proponents of either side of the argument.

19. Has parliament thought through the consequences of this amendment?

There is a modern conceit that human beings can predict the consequences of any action, and can therefore decide what is right and proper on the basis of their own reasoning.  It is not so.   The world is infinitely complex, and unintended and unforeseen consequences abound. Parliamentarians delude themselves that they can see all the consequences which will flow from tampering with ancient social institutions.  The truth is that they see only a small part which suits their purposes, and they remain ignorant of the whole.

20. Can homosexual relationships be the same as husband and wife relationships?

The character and roles of a husband and wife are distinctly different from each other, even in the present age, when both may be obliged to work outside the home, and the domestic tasks are more evenly shared. The husband and wife relationship is also in essence a procreative relationship, even if there is no issue of offspring from the relationship.  A homosexual relationship may mimic aspects of the marriage relationship.  Homosexual partners may inherit children from a previous relationship, they may adopt children, or they may produce children through surrogates, but all such measures and adaptations are contrivances which arise out of distortions of the natural order.

21. Are homosexual relationships and husband and wife relationships "equal"?

They are very different in action, character, purpose, ramifications and consequences. To call things equal when they are not is equivocation " ("equi" equal + "vocare" to call).   Things which are not of the same character cannot logically be deemed equal.  For example men and women can be equal as citizens, or as workers, but it is meaningless to say that they are equal per se.  Similarly, it is meaningless to suggest that homosexual and normal sexual relations can be "equal".

22. Isn't marriage about love and commitment rather than sex?

When much sex takes place outside of marriage, as it does, it might seem that marriage is no longer predominantly concerned with the social approbation of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman.  However “love and commitment” can also be found outside of marriage relationships. The unfashionable truth is that marriage was uniquely designed to regulate sexual relationships between men and women, and that remains the case even today. A childless marriage is still a marriage, but in the canon law a marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated by the act of sexual intercourse.  Love and commitment normally precede marriage, and the production of offspring normally follows on from marriage, but in essence marriage is concerned with sex.  Gay marriage is no exception.  It has been designed to place the final stamp of legitimacy upon the homosexual act.

23. Should homosexual relationships and normal sexual relationships be governed by the same statute?

They are not of the same character, and therefore should not be governed by the same institutions.   To suggest that they are of the same character, and should be governed by the same institutions, is to perpetrate a fraud upon the people of this country.

24. Will gay marriage serve the interests of the gay community?

Arguably not.  It is a safe prediction that only a small minority of gays will want to join in a homosexual marriage, and those that do will gain no material rights or privileges that they would not have enjoyed in a civil union.  On the other hand, having both fundamentalist Christian and militant homosexual couples now sharing the same house, the institution of marriage, may fuel the fire of mutual animosities.   The gay community wants to be seen, and it wants to make its presence felt.  The fundamentalists wish to maintain a separation from everything associated with homosexuality.  That may be a recipe for continuing strife and discord.