A Sting in the Tail

What Louisa Wall Does Not Want Us to Know

In a recent post on the oxymoronic "homosexual marriage" we pointed out that the private members bill, currently before the New Zealand Parliament, purports homosexual marriage to be a fundamental human right. 

Of course the assertion that homosexual marriage is a human right received a major setback recently when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that same sex marriages were not a human right.  Oh dear, never mind.  Better not to let the facts get in the way of a good story. 

A central concern of the Court was that if homosexual "marriage" were ruled to be a human right, Christian churches would necessarily end up being persecuted and prosecuted.
 

There is a sting in the tail of the ruling.  The august judges reckon that if homosexual marriage were declared a human right, anti-discrimination laws would require Christian churches to marry homosexuals.

The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.  It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

Doubtless it was concerns such as these that have led Scotland--which is attempting to legalise homosexual marriage--to promise all sorts of carve outs for conscientious objectors, whether individuals or religious churches.  Might such a carve out be required if New Zealand?  You had better believe it, for embedded in the NZ Marriage Act are the following clauses:

Section 56

Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage

• (1)
Every person commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200, who—
  • (a)
alleges, expressly or by implication, that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married; or
  • (b)
alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.


(2)
For the purposes of this section the term alleges means making any verbal statement, or publishing or issuing any printed or written statement, or in any manner authorising the making of any verbal statement, or in any manner authorising or being party to the publication or issue of any printed or written statement.

Were the Private Members Bill to pass the existing Marriage Act already calls for legal punishment of anyone who would speak out against the newly legal "homosexual marriage".  That's why homosexual marriage must not be allowed on the grounds that it constitutes a fundamental human right.