New Zealand has extremely restrictive marriage laws. Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act is devoted to proscribing marriage between all kinds of people.
Schedule 2
Prohibited degrees of marriage
Schedule 2: replaced, on 19 August 2013, by section 8 of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 (2013 No 20).
(1) A person may not marry the person's—
Well, in the first place we should reconsider the arguments put forward by those who successfully changed the law of marriage to include homosexuals as being able to be "married". This introduced what some commentators have aptly called the Homosexual Mirage Law. The arguments in favour of the Mirage were two.
Firstly, a libertarian argument: what consenting adults wish to do was their own business. If two adult men or women desire and consent to be married, their sovereign and free choices should not be thwarted by the state, but respected and acceded to by the law. Homosexual "marriage" was thus proposed as a fundamental human right. The second argument was "love". If two people loved each other, such affection and attachment cannot be legitimately thwarted.
If one were to take those two arguments seriously, then all the remaining prohibited marriages listed in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act above should have gone as well. That they should have remained represents craven cowardice on the part of the Members of Parliament who campaigned and speechified so passionately about the homosexual mirage. Either these people were genuine, or they were deeply hypocritical, and the arguments being put forward to advance homosexual "marriage" were empty lies and nefarious pretexts. Which is it? Clearly the homosexual "marriage" protagonists were not genuine.
How can we tell? A new face has appeared on the political scene. Dr Jamie Whyte, former Cambridge philosophy lecturer, has become leader of the libertarian leaning, Act Party. Dr Whyte has said he cannot see any principial or philosophical objection to a brother and sister, as consenting adults, being married. Dr Whyte advances the same arguments and justifications as were employed to justify homosexual "marriage" in New Zealand.
Overnight, so many rats were jumping the ship as to make the sea distinctly puce. First rat overboard was the Prime Minister, John Key.
"I think it's pretty silly actually", Mr Key told reporters this afternoon. "There's no place for incest, it's a ridiculous kind of statement. On the other side of the coin if I could offer him [Dr Whyte] and a few others a bit of advice, the New Zealand public are interested in hearing about the issues that matter. We are focused on the economy and law and order, health and education and really drifting off into these kind of stupid statements isn't going to take anybody anywhere." [NZ Herald]Well, let's see now. Is this the same Mr Key who, when homosexual "marriage" was first proposed twelve months ago, vowed that he would support the bill through all stages of Parliament, which vow he kept. Apparently, back then, he reckoned that New Zealanders were really, really keen on this. Back then it was an issue that "really mattered". The NZ public were (apparently) engaged and transfixed on getting homosexuals "married", and that's why Key pushed it so strongly.
But not allowing a brother and sister to be married? Well, no--that's incest, and for that there's no place. What a perfectly circular argument. The dictionary defines incest as: "the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden." [Emphasis, ours.] But the whole issue is whether it ought to be legally forbidden, in which case it would not be incest, by definition. Whose guilty of making a silly statement now? If two people love each other and are consenting adults and happen to be brother and sister, it should not be regarded as illegal and, therefore, incest, surely--in just the same way two homosexuals can now be legally recognised as "married".
A rat which jumped ship just behind the Prime Minister was Labour MP, Phil Goff who, when Justice Minister looked at the issue of ensuring the "rights" of brothers and sisters "in love".
Labour MP Phil Goff said the possibility of decriminalising incest between consenting adults was raised by officials when he was Justice Minister in 2005. "We did look at that, that was put up to me by officials and we said no we didn't think that was in any way going to be acceptable to New Zealand society and it had certain risks involved. "It's not simply the old thing about congenital disorders but it's also about the protection of life within a family and I thought that was a factor you had to take into account and it was a lot better to maintain the laws and to not make that change so we didn't take it further."But, of course, Mr Goff voted fiercely and with great alacrity for Homosexual Mirage. In his statement above, and implied in Mr Key's as well, is the real truth. It's all about public support and votes. Before us is the politician of our age: "Behold, these are my principles, and they are for sale to the highest number of bidders". Even arguments and principles based on human rights--apparently--and on liberty, and freedom, and justice, etc. etc. etc. If there ain't enough votes in it, I'm not selling. If there are, watch me run like a rabid dog to the hustings and the Parliament.
We believe Dr Jamie Whyte is wrong on this matter. But at least he has some integrity. At least he is acting consistently with his stated principles. As for the ratpack, the grandiose arguments they so pompously advanced to justify and support homosexual "marriage" were mere hypocritical, fatuous bagatelle. In reality, the rest are all amoral and unprincipled--as proven beyond reasonable doubt by their reluctance to acknowledge the equally compelling "rights" of a brother and sister to marry, along with a father and daughter, and a donkey--provided the latter consents, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment