Unmasking the Misinformation Campaign of the Same-sex ‘Marriage’ Lobbyists

SUMMARY OF A Legal Opinion obtained  from Barrister Ian Bassett by Family First NZ. It has labeled the conscientious exemption proposed by the Select Committee Report on the same-sex marriage bill as ‘unprincipled and wrong’, ‘misguided’, ‘unjustifiably discriminatory’, and ‘based upon flawed legal advice’.

If the [Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Amendment] Bill was enacted incorporating the s5A recommendations of the Select Committee then:

Q1: Will marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion (who are also marriage celebrants) be forced to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’ even if to do so would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the marriage celebrants, marriage registrars and ministers of religion?

Protected

(a) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

NOT Protected

(b) A marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation) will not be able lawfully to refuse to solemnise a marriage if the religious body or the approved organisation endorsed same sex marriage.

Unclear

(c) It is unclear what will be the position of a marriage celebrant (who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1) or a celebrant (who is a person nominated to solemnise marriages by an approved organisation), where the approved religious body or organisation is split on the issue of same sex marriage or refuses to adopt an official position on the issue.

NOT Protected 

(d) (i) Independent marriage celebrants (ie who are not celebrants within (a) above) will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.

NOT Protected

(ii) Marriage registrars will not lawfully be able to refuse to solemnise a same sex marriage even if solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs or conscience.

Q2: Will temples, mosques, synagogues, churches and other places of worship be required to be used to solemnise same-sex ‘marriages’?

NOT Protected

(e) Church ministers, marriage celebrants, church elders (or persons or entity) supplying their churches (or temples or mosques or synagogues) to the public will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 and acting unlawfully, if they refuse to supply their churches to a couple seeking to be married, by reason of the same sex of the couple.

READ THE FULL LEGAL OPINION

http://bobmccoskrie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Legal-Opinion-6-March-Marriage-Act-Amendment-Bill.pdf

Leave a Reply