Monkey Wrenches

 The Law Society on the Homosexual "Marriage" Bill

Powerful testimony has been given to the parliamentary select committee considering the homosexual "marriage" bill put forward by lesbian Labour MP, Louisa Wall.  It has come from the NZ Law Society.

Many groups have argued, including on the pages of this website, that making homosexual "marriage" a fundamental human right implies that churches and church ministers who refuse to marry homosexuals, or to allow their church buildings or facilities be hired by homosexuals for marriage celebrations, would be in breach of the Bill of Rights and subject to interdiction by the Human Rights Commission.  Wall and others have argued that this would not the case, because Section 29 of the Marriage Act says a marriage licence authorises but does not oblige a celebrant to solemnise a marriage.

But they have overlooked (wilfully, or ignorantly--we do not know)
that the Human Rights Act is an entrenched law that supersedes all other legislation, unless particular legislation explicitly overrides the Human Rights Act.  The vague and general provision of Section 29 would hardly withstand the higher authority of the Human Rights Act.  According to Protect Marriage

. . . the Law Society says celebrants may still be bound under human rights guidelines introduced after the Marriage Act. Paul Rishworth, the society’s spokesperson on law reform, says a provision should be included in Ms Wall’s bill making it clear that celebrants would be able to turn away same-sex couples if they chose.

The Human Rights Commission says, "Nah--we would not prosecute anyone who refuses to marry homosexuals.

However, the Human Rights Commission maintains the bill will not criminalise ministers who refuse to wed gay couples. Chief Commissioner David Rutherford says the provision is not necessary.

Until they change their mind and do--whereupon it will be too late.  You know the drill.  Fast forward a couple of years: ". . . to be sure, the Human Rights Commission did submit to the parliamentary committee that the conscience and freedom of religious objectors would be protected, but we have taken further legal advice and we now consider that those churches and ministers who refuse to marry homosexuals and recognise homosexual marriage, or speak against it are in breach of the Human Rights Act."  Sorry about that.  We made a "good faith" mistake, but now we are sure.  Too late.  Too bad. 

Given that we are a secular Unbelieving nation that daily delights to blaspheme against the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe that a carve out for Christians and ministers and churches (and all religious people, for that matter--Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc) is about the best that can be hoped for.  If this were acceded to, and the Bill were so amended it would give Christians and churches a wonderful opportunity to draw yet another clear distinction between paganism and the Christian faith. 

For the Christian, marriage is ordained by God the Creator to be between a man and a woman until death parts to which both the man and the woman submit for God's sake.  For the pagan, marriage is a relationship of human wilfulness, devolved to an arrangement of convenience.  It can be entered into and terminated at will. 

If Man prescribes marriage, he can dissolve it at a whim.  So Unbelief claims, and so it does.  It is a relationship that in principle (and increasingly in practice) is no more a marriage than a decision to buy a dog  at the local pet store.