There is a parliamentary select committee travelling around the countryside hearing submissions on the bill which would allow homosexuals to be "married". It would seem that the committee is made up of parliamentarians whose agenda is to go through the motions of hearing submissions, but whose minds were long ago made up and are now shut like steel traps. They want to see the bill become law.
Whether or not they will be successful we will have to see. If they are, Christians will need to start using language more precisely. They will need to deny emphatically and clearly that two homosexuals living together is not marriage, nor will it ever be marriage. That the law recognises it as marriage would be of no relevance. On this matter the law will have become an ass. Consequently, in this blog we always write homosexual "marriage" with inverted commas.
The behaviour of the committee members, however, gives us a glimpse into our future, should this bill become law. We have heard personally of two submitters to that committee who were shabbily treated, one in Wellington, the other in Auckland. There was hostility and disdain on display. On the other hand, those whose submissions were in favour of homosexual "marriage" were fawned over by the committee members (according to one source).
The Sunday Star Times details the case of one young girl whose experience was similar to those with whom we have spoken.
Maria, at NZ Conservative quotes Scott, who also appeared before the committee.
Committee ‘menacing’ to anti-gay marriage teenagerSunday Star Times 27 Jan 2013
A teenager opposed to gay marriage has accused select committee members of behaving in a hostile and “menacing” way to submitters who are against a proposed law change for same-sex couples. Leader of conservative lobby group Family First Bob McCoskrie says the girl was treated apallingly by MPs when she told them during her oral submission that to allow homosexuals to marry would undermine the sanctity of marriage, with one calling her “homophobic” and another getting up for refreshments in the middle of her speech.
In a press release sent to the Sunday Star-Times, McCoskrie said 18-year-old Grace Carroll was left humiliated, disappointed and frustrated by the experience – and she’s not the only person to have complained.
My experience was that the select committee was hopelessly biased and let people know very early whether they were in favour or not. Ruth Dyson was chairing and warmly received the submissions of the rainbow wing of the Labour party (no surprise there) and Margaret Mayman, the pastor of St Andrews on the Terrace (the most liberal church in New Zealand).These accounts are all consistent: they reflect not just one sitting of the committee, but its persistent modus operandi throughout the country.
Your humble correspondent was not greeted at all warmly. Indeed immediately warned about the intolerant nature of my submission. This before I had even spoken a word!
It is clear that the select committee has a predetermined outcome in mind, to recommend gay marriage to parliament and see it become the law of the land.
I suspect the reason they got stuck into young Grace was that they have been saying for the past year that the youth are on their side. Here was an authentic young person that defied that meme. She, must be silenced at all costs! - Scott
The committee chairwoman, Ruth Dyson has abused used her position in the attempt to silence opponents of the Bill. She has overtly and deliberately squashed the free speech rights of submitters opposing the Bill--and has not yet been called to account. She does so, hiding behind the non-discrimination provisions of the Bill of Rights. Apparently she has not read the provisions which protect free speech and freedom of religion. And she is a parliamentarian, no less! Her behaviour is not just unprofessional. It amounts to a shameful dereliction of duty.
This raises a much larger question: why are secular liberals so intolerant? Not all are intolerant, of course. But many are. The enemies of free speech in the West these days are not from the secular right: they are liberals reaching out to crush any notion or speech or utterance they find offensive. They have all the charm and urbanity of a Tudor tyrant.
Henry VIII was a professing Christian. Secular liberals clearly are not. How could they end up with the same attitude toward opponents? Henry was an absolutist because he believed he was God's representative upon earth: therefore, no rival thought or ideas or actions could be tolerated. Secular liberals often end up in the same place. They believe there is no higher authority upon earth than secular liberalism. It will brook no opponents and no rivals. Opposition needs to be shut down.
Henry's theology was aberrant; its fruits were terrible. The theology of secular liberalism is likewise aberrant; its fruits are likewise terrible. Just ask any of the children slaughtered in the womb whose blood is crying out to God from the ground. They have all been sacrificed upon the bloody altar of human rights.
The mien of the parliamentary committee towards their opponents also signifies how the fruit of secular liberalism is rotting on the vine.