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.

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?

“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.