Press Release – Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
SPCS Media Release: 12 March 2013 The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) has been forced to define the term marriage in its constitution, in response to the utter confusion generated by the promoters of Louisa Walls …
Society forced to change its Constitution due to legally flawed ‘Gay’ ‘marriage’ bill
SPCS Media Release: 12 March 2013
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) has been forced to define the term “marriage” in its constitution, in response to the utter confusion generated by the promoters of Louisa Wall’s legally flawed and dishonest Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill, that seeks to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples and erroneously asserts in its Explanatory Note, that the Principal Act – the Marriage Act 1955 – discriminates against ‘gay’ couples. (It does NOT ! see Quilter v. Attorney General ).
At its Annual General Meeting on 28 January 2013 chaired by Society President, John Mills, a Kapiti Coast businessman, Society members voted unanimously to add a definition of marriage to section 2(c) of its Constitution: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. This now clarifies the longstanding object 2(c): “To promote wholesome personal values, including strong family life and the benefits of lasting marriage as the foundation for stable communities,” should Ms Wall’s flawed bill ever become law.
Without this change to its Constitution (which now uses the same words to define “marriage” taken from Australian legislation passed in 1984 – The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 1984) – the Society would be required (by its own Constitution) “to promote … the benefits of lasting [heterosexual] marriage” as well as ‘gay marriage’ … “ as the foundation for stable communities.” To do the latter would be anathema to the Society, as it holds to the universally held view that marriage is a unique loving relationship involving two persons of opposite gender: one male and one female, a relationship that by nature is orientated towards the generation of and nurturing of children. In contrast no gay couple can between themselves produce children (the relationship is biologically sterile).
The concept of ‘gay marriage’ as pointed out by Society spokesperson, David Lane, to the Government Administration Committee, in the Society’s oral submission on the bill, is an oxymoron.
Louisa Wall’s bill cannot become law as it contains a host of serious breaches of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. For example, under its revised Schedule 2 (with all gender differences removed from the Principal Act), it will exclude many ‘loving’ couples from getting legally married, and yet the bill provides no justification for such discriminatory prohibitions. A 19-year-old homosexual male, after divorcing his same-sex ‘married’ partner, will be unable to legally marry his ex-partner’s father. (No children can come from such a ‘union’ so why the prohibition?). Under Louisa Wall’s proposed legislation, there is no rational or biological reason why two biological brothers (or sisters) who love each other should not get married if they declare their love for one another. And yet her bill prevents them from marrying. Why? (Prohibited marriages under Schedule 2 of the Principal Act are based on the issue of consanguinity of the potential offspring. However, gay couples are sterile. So why the prohibitions?).
Louisa Wall has refused to explain why her bill allows for such blatant discriminations. Surely if she genuinely seeks “marriage equality” for all, as she claims; her bill will need to be modified to allow any couple to marry including this example where both members have no biological links and cannot produce children. The Attorney-General, the Hon. Chris Finlayson, will no doubt prevent the bill proceeding when he fully grasps the breaches of the Bill of Rights Act contained in this poorly drafted, legally flawed and dishonest bill.
To see the Society’s written submission on the bill go to: