‘Homophobia’, Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Aggressive Lesbian Political Agenda
October 10, 2007 by admin
Filed under Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Marriage
"Homophobia alive and well on [the Kapiti] Coast" was the headline of a recent letter to the editor written by a couple who criticised the Kapiti Observer Newspaper for publishing an article in which mayoralty candidate Jenny Rowan’s "sexual orientation" was briefly referred to. What the article did not disclose to readers was that this "openly lesbian" candidate and her lesbian partner of 20 years, Jools Joslin, have spent years crusading for the New Zealand Marriage Act to be radically changed so that same-sex couples like themselves can get married. Rowan has helped force the issue of her identification as an "openly lesbian" person and her claimed "gay rights" into a national political debate, at significant cost to the tax-payers through legal aid pay-outs involving High Court and Court of Appeal litigation, and yet now she seeks to downplay the relevance of her "sexual orientation" in the political sphere.
Ms Jenny Rowan and her lesbian supporters (Ms Judith Dale et al. Letters Kapiti Observer 4/10/07) argue that being an "openly lesbian" candidate for mayor of Kapiti Coast is completely irrelevant to the question of her suitability for the job. She and her supporters accuse anyone who dares to make the slightest reference to her "sexual orientation", as engaging in "homophobia" and blatant bigotry. However, it was ‘News’ Reports from the political lobby group GayNZ.com that has flaunted Ms Rowan’s "sexual orientation" in these terms ("OPENLY gay" See Ref. 1).
In a free society one is entitled to parade one’s OPEN sexual preference for political gain. Why not? Labour gay MPs such Maryan Street, Tim Barnett, Cabinet Minister Hon. Chris Carter, transsexual former MP Georgina Beyer, and others have done it regularly?
For same-sex couples like Rowan and Joslin, who share six children, the Civil Union Act (2005) that established the institution of civil unions for same-sex couples but did not grant the right to marry, was, and still is, a bitter disappointment. "There is a public perception in New Zealand now that lesbian and gay people have equal rights and that’s simply not true," said 56-year-old Rowan. (Te Waha Nui Online 1/06/07).
Lesbian activist Marilyn Waring, former MP and currently Professor at Auckland University of Technology, agrees: "Gays and lesbians are just another group of people who have not been offered equality and dignity in society." She has been an outspoken opponent of civil unions, arguing that gays should have pushed for gay marriage rather than accept a second rate option of civil unions. "Equivalence is not equality" she argues, as she seeks to spearhead a fresh attempt to demand marriage "rights" for gays (See Ref. 2).
Like Waring, Rowan and Joslin have been waiting years for same-sex marriage to be legalised. Both Rowan and Joslin were involved in a failed bid to take on the Crown in the High Court over their inability to marry, in the failed 1996 Quilter case. Having lost their case, Rowan and Joslin then took the case to the Court of Appeal, but failed again. Subsequently the persistent plaintiffs forwarded a Communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee seeking a statement that New Zealand is breaching its obligations to Human Rights under various international conventions (Ref. 3). The UN Committee rejected the gay lobbyist’s claims, concluding: "[we] cannot find that by mere refusal to provide for marriage between homosexual couples, the State party [New Zealand] has violated the rights of the authors…" [The Committee is] "… of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of any provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…" (Ref. 4).
Rowan and Joslin finally travelled to Canada last year to have a legal marriage. However this ‘marriage’ is NOT recognised in New Zealand law and the vast majority of New Zealanders want it to stay that way. Marriage has been universally acknowledged since time immemorial as involving the union of a man and a woman.
Same sex marriages were decisively dealt with by the Court of Appeal in the Quilter case where three lesbian couples including Rowan and Jools applied to the Registrar for a marriage licence and were refused. Their legal counsel argued unjustified "discrimination" based on "sexual orientation", but were unsuccessful as the Court held that the Marriage Act contemplated marriage ONLY between a man and woman, and if that were to change, Parliament would need to amend the Marriage Act, not the Courts.
In Quilter v Attorney General [1998] 1 NZLR 523 the Court of Appeal held that the Marriage Act 1955 applies to marriage between a man and a woman only and that this does NOT constitute unjustified discrimination. The Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 requires that government activities be subject to the anti-discrimination standards set out in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993. The prohibited grounds of unjustified discrimination include sexual orientation and gender. (Justified discrimination is not against the law).
In the Quilter case, the lesbian couples relied on New Zealand’s gender-neutral marriage law, and argued that the Bill of Rights Act, which forbids unjustified discrimination on the grounds spelt out in the Human Rights Act of 1993 (which includes the grounds based on gender and sexual orientation), entitled them to get married. The Quilter case was quite rightly unanimously dismissed by all five Court of Appeal Judges.
If Ms Rowan and her homosexual cabal continue to use the Courts to demand "special rights" for those who identify as "gay" – push for State legitimisation and ‘sanctification’ in law of same-sex marriage – they are on a hiding to nothing. Based on the Quilter case ruling, they know that and their focus of their lobbying has now had to turn to using parliament to change the law to redefine marriage in favour of gays. Within the Labour Party caucus in particular there are prominent homosexuals hell-bent on securing such law change and gaining adoption rights in law for homosexual couples. Such MPs use every opportunity to call for the recognition, affirmation and celebration of so-called "sexual diversity" – a code word for sodomy/gay lifestyle.
Gays who flaunt and promote as normal their sexual preferences and practices under the banner of "Sexual Diversity Celebration" pursue their personal political goals to secure gay marriage rights and gay adoption; fully aware that the vast majority of New Zealanders strongly oppose such radical legislative changes. All who oppose this pernicious political agenda on moral grounds or on any other basis, are personally attacked as "homophobes", bigots and fundamentalist flat-earthers by activists in the homosexual community. The battle-lines are now drawn between those who want Judaeo-Christian values restored to prominence and upheld in New Zealand and those who want to radically reshape the definition of the marriage institution and family values.
References
- For example: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_4995.php
- http://podcast.gaynz.com/?p=26
- The Joslin Petition claims that the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision, in failing to recognise marriage rights for same sex couples, violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or “the Covenant”), a UN based human rights treaty ratified by 147 nation states as of 16 July 2000. Communication No.902/1999, Joslin et al v New Zealand, was forwarded to the UNHRC in December 1998. There were some delays in the process, but the plaintiff’s final response to the NZ Government’s response was forwarded to the Committee on 11 December 2001.
- Decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Released October 2002. The full version of the "Views of the Human Rights Committee" can be found here. A Response to the decision from the lawyer acting for the plaintiffs, Nigel Christie, can be found in the Lesbian and Gay Legal Equality Newsletter here.
In the second last paragraph, the anonymous author of this piece claims that gays and lesbians are demanding “special rights”. Could the author please explain what “special rights” these people are asking for that heterosexuals do not already have? How does their asking for “equal rights” to heterosexuals amount to “special rights”? “Special rights” intimates rights that heterosexuals do not have. This is patently absurd since they can get married, and if anyone has “special rights”, which are not extended to other groups, it is the heterosexuals in society.
Ken Cage claims that homosexuals are not asking for “special rights” but simply the same rights that heterosexuals have. This is an assertion, what’s needed is an argument; He gives one in the last sentence where he says:
“Special rights” intimates rights that heterosexuals do not have. This is patently absurd since they can get married, and if anyone has “special rights”, which are not extended to other groups, it is the heterosexuals in society.”
The claim Cage makes is that currently 1. Heterosexuals have a right to marry 2. Homosexuals do not.
There are several confusions here. First the marriage act does not prohibit any person from getting married, it simply lays down which types of marriages the state will solemnize and recognize. If two men wanted to cohabit, exchange vows have a ceremony before friends and family and even a religious ceremony with a religious minister of some kind, then nothing prevents them doing so under current law. All the marriage act says is that the state will not officiate the ceremony and will not recognize it. That’s different from prohibiting it occurring.
Second, contrary to the assertion in Cage’s post it’s not true that the law denies homosexuals a right it currently grants to heterosexuals. Under the law heterosexual people have a right to a state recognized marriage with one person, of the opposite sex , who is over 16 and not a close relative. They do not have a right to a state recognized marriage with a member of the same sex.
Homosexuals however are not demanding this right, that’s because under law they already have it. They are rather demanding something different; they are demanding the law be amended so that they have a right to marry a person of the same sex. This clearly is not a right heterosexuals currently have under the marriage act.
What Cage presumably means is that same sex couples are not given the same right as opposite sex couples. Unions between the latter and former are not recognized by the state as marriages. Now this is true, however it is not contrary to what SPCS stated. What SPCS said is that “If Ms Rowan and her homosexual cabal continue to use the Courts to demand “special rights” for those who identify as “gay” – push for State legitimisation and ‘sanctification’ in law of same-sex marriage – they are on a hiding to nothing.”
SPCS did not claim that same sex couples are pushing for special rights. SPCS are clear that they constitute two homosexual individuals, e.g. Jenny Rowan and Jools Joslin, who both identify as Gay, i.e people with a homosexual orientation.
What the defender of Gay marriage needs to argue here is not that all individuals should have the same rights regardless of sexual orientation. Rather they need to argue that all couples should have the same rights regardless of the gender of the partners in question.
What is interesting, is that very rarely do we ever hear an argument for this claim which limits it to same sex couples. If, as is usually argued, that claim is that what matters is that the partners love each other and not their gender. Then polygamous and incestuous unions should also be recognized by the state, brothers and sisters can love each other, and it’s possible for three or four people to love each other. On the other hand if the state does not recognize these unions even when the people involved love each other, then clearly love is not all that matters and the premise utilized to justify Gay marriage is therefore false.
I think what needs to added here is WHY the state has traditionally recognized marriage between a man and a woman. Is marriage useful, even necessary to the wellbeing of the state? Think of children and their growth and nurture as citizens, and the next generation.
Now, it may be argued that gays can also raise children, and do. But like abortion, the right of the child is herein not considered. Does the child have a right to a mother AND a father?
Is a man just a woman in a skirt? No, they are different and both impart themselves and their gender and attributes into their children, ready for the next generation when they in turn will marry and procreate. How can a same-sex couple achieve this?
I for one do not strongly oppose legislative change to allow same gender couples to marry if that is what they want. If fact I think it is good idea for those who would like to take up this option. What is the big deal?
The idea of gay marriage in New Zealand being legal may well offend the moral sensibilities of some members of Community Standard Inc. However, it should not be the only concern about the ‘right to marry’ in which this organisation ought to be taking a keen and enduring interest. Exactly who should have the ‘right to marry’ in New Zealand in the 21st century is indeed an issue, and one that needs to be the subject of far more thoughtful and wide ranging debate in this country that it currently receives.
There are plenty of behaviours practiced within (heterosexual) marriage in New Zealand that right now offend many people’s moral sensibilities eg spousal rape, spousal killing, child abuse. Yet I doubt whether Community Standards Inc. members will be racing to the starting line to take up the challenge of widening the terms of reference of the ‘right to marry’ debate to include stringent policing of members of the heterosexual population for fitness for marriage. But it is about time they did.
While effort is wasted on one-eyed debates centered on whether two people of the same gender ought to be able to marry or not, the really important issues, such as spousal and child abuse, are the ones that “impart themselves into their children ready for the next generation when they in turn will marry and procreate” as Anon so aptly puts it.