The Adoption Act 1955, section 3(2), says
An adoption order may be made on the application of 2 spouses jointly in respect of a child.
Supposedly, we must “legalise” gay marriage so that gay couples can adopt children. So where’s the bit that says the two spouses cannot be of the same sex? Why is Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill seeking to amend the Marriage Act and not the Adoption Act?
Someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about. Because I’m baffled. Baffled by bullshit?
It’s about gay rights.
The right not to be subject to discrimination.
The right to force acceptance.
I fail to see how Louisa Wall’s bill (if passed) will “force acceptance” of anything.
Heaven forbid that Anglican priests should be “required” to “marry” gay couples.
Mostly the forced acceptance of homosexuality/gay relationships has already happened – it’s covered in the Human Rights Act. This new legislation would simply reinforce legislation that already exists and possibly cover any gaps that allow discrimination.
The best case for this law is that it is ineffective but even if it were ineffective it should still be opposed because of its intent.
They would need an exception to the Human Rights Act. What about someone that offers wedding facilities? They would need an exception too.
Reed, are you sure about this? In Gay marriage opponents gear up to fight Wall’s bill the NZ Herald reports
The implication hadn’t occurred to me, but perhaps you’re right. Will an “opt-out” clause be written into the legislation? If it’s necessary to redefine ‘marriage’ in the first place, then surely an explicit “opt-out” clause is also necessary?
Thinking further, churches and others offering wedding services (in either sense of the word) could refuse to cater for same sex couples on the grounds that they are of the *same* sex, as opposed to the grounds of (being of a particular) sex or sexual orientation.
Having said that, if discrimination on the grounds that two people are of the same sex is legal, then our existing marriage legislation is non-discriminatory in the sense of the Human Rights Act and the proposed legislation does much more than merely “make it clear” what marriage is. In fact, it aims to explicitly redefine ‘marriage’ as “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
Reed, I agree with your comment here. The gay marriage issue is being framed dishonestly and the public are being manipulated. It’s blatant social engineering. I’m adding the tag “Propaganda” to my posts on this topic. Cheers!
I’m not sure what you mean by “this” so I’ll explain a little more.
Anglican priests would need an exception from the human rights legislation – there are some exceptions there already for “religious organisations” – I can’t see the one that might cover gay marriage specifically but it’s 70 pages of legislation and there are lots of exceptions.
I’m presuming a non-religious wedding venue has no exception. They need one. Everybody needs an exception.
Probably because there isn’t one.
And you’re right. Everyone needs an exception.