A Bloggin Minute: Wearing Down(New Zealand) Parliament loses opportunity to protect marriage
Yesterday, Parliament voted 73-47 to defeat the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Bill that would have defined in legislation that marriage is between one man and one woman. This Bill would have sent a clear message that the traditional definition of marriage is valued and protected in this country.
Parties treated the vote as a conscience issue, although there were some clear voting patterns. All Labour MPs, except one voted against the Bill; National MPs were split 36 in favour of the Bill and 12 opposed; New Zealand First were split, five in favour and two opposed; Jim Anderton, the Green and Maori MPs opposed the Bill; and all United Future MPs and both Act MPs voted in support of the legislation.
Many MPs were convinced by the argument that this legislation is unnecessary because marriage is already defined in our courts as a union between one man and one woman. Whilst technically true, this argument missed the real need for and importance of this Bill.
When similar legislation was passed in Australia last August, the Attorney General, Mr. Peter Ruddock stated it this way: "The bill is necessary because there is significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage...The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children."
This was an opportunity for our Parliament to show it's support for the place of marriage in New Zealand - an opportunity sadly lost.
(The above post was taken from an email from Maxim Institute, (http://www.maxim.org.nz) dated 8 December 2005. Real Issues #186. Sign up for them on the site.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The way to save the institution of marriage is to take it out of the hands of politicians. How dare they even consider themselves holy enough to say anything about marriage! The state should keep its nose out of religious affairs.
Can I also ask how banning certain people from getting married protects marriage? Surely if you want to support marriage, the best way of doing it is to support those who want to get married.
Thanks for your comments. Marriage is between one man and one woman. God said it is a good thing and is natural because children are ONLY conceived naturally between one man and one woman. No, they are not the perfect mum and dad but they are the natural mum and dad and that is what should always be kept as the 'norm' by Government law otherwise, as is already the case, the taxpayers pick up all the shattered bits and pieces of every other way a child is brought into the world.
So, really, you're not against gay marriage, just against adoption, right?
Sexual relationships between two men or two women is unnatural.
1. No, it's not. Sexual relations between two homosexuals of the same gender are 100% natural. Sexual relations between a homosexual and a member of the opposite sex are unnatural.
2. Even if it's unnatural, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn't it unnatural to wear clothes? To farm animals and vegetables? To use the internet etc.?
Take a good long look @ the design of a 3-pin plug and then the socket in the wall...do you see that? By design they are purposefully made and so is a man and a woman designed for their purpose. The mum, dad and their children generational family, should be protected from those who would denegrate and confuse with 'clothing, farming animals/vegetables or the use of internet etc...'
So, homosexuality is wrong because people are plugs - is that what you're saying? I hate to break it to you, but plugs don't have minds or sexualities. A plug and a plug trying to fit in to each other is not immoral, just impossible.
I'm interested by this comment:
The mum, dad and their children generational family, should be protected from those who would denegrate and confuse with 'clothing, farming animals/vegetables or the use of internet etc...'
Does this mean that you believe Lev 19:19 to be irrelevant in our lives these days?
Also, I hope you realise that all homosexuals are part of generational families. I'm also curious as to how you know, that you are able to state it with such certainty, the purpose for which men and women were designed.
now you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, carry on...
Are people pegs/holes now?
I'm interested by this comment:
The mum, dad and their children generational family, should be protected from those who would denegrate and confuse with 'clothing, farming animals/vegetables or the use of internet etc...'
Does this mean that you believe Lev 19:19 to be irrelevant in our lives these days?
Also, I hope you realise that all homosexuals are part of generational families. I'm also curious as to how you know, that you are able to state it with such certainty, the purpose for which men and women were designed.
Please refer to your Creator :)
Post a Comment