Submission to Public Law Group, Ministry of Justice
by the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.)
30 April 2000
Responses to all discussion paper questions (1-16).
QUESTION 1 - What are your views about same-sex couples being able to marry?
Traditionally and culturally marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The terms "marriage", "marry" and "married" are all defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as involving an "intimate union" between a husband and a wife (a male and a female) which is recognised officially within the communal system. Marriage has been consistently recognised as such down through time and across all cultures. The three oldest and greatest monotheistic world religions recognise the institution as having been instituted by God the Creator of all things at the beginning of creation (see e.g. Gen 1:27; 2:24; Matt 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-9).
It would be utterly detestable to those of us committed to the historic Christian faith - to have "same-sex couples able to marry". The essence of marriage must be preserved under law as a lifelong union between a man and a woman. It is the function of the State to preserve and foster the family unit as the cornerstone of Society and the ideal unit for ensuring the continuity between the generations. To call a same sex relationship "marriage" is an inversion of the very term. Furthermore, because the teachings of the Christian faith declares homosexual sexual practices to be immoral; and (heterosexual) marriage as traditionally understood as a God given-gift which is honourable (Heb. 13:4); we consider the attempt to redefine marriage to include that which is immoral, as a downright attack on our faith, as would many others adhering to other faiths.
We object to same-sex couples being able to marry because marriage is an inherently a heterosexual institution. To attempt to 'elevate' the 'status' of a homosexual 'union' to that of marriage under law is to denigrate the honourable God-instituted relationship/status of marriage. Marriage does not exist on the basis of being a human right in any culture. Therefore it is absurd for homosexuals to claim equal status for a non-qualifying relationship on the basis of "human rights". Marriage is NOT a human rights issue. It is about giving legal preference to a unique relationship between a man and a woman because of what the relationship does for social order, the safety of children and the continuity of kinship across the generations.
Human rights do not exist within a moral vacuum. The moral order cannot be ignored by legislators seeking to make judgements on this issue. The greatest teacher and moral exemplar to ever live - the Lord Jesus Christ - the One whose teachings have unquestionably had the greatest influence for good on humanity; taught that marriage is ordained of God and has involved one man and one woman from the beginning of creation (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 9: 5-9). The mature human person has been designed anatomically, physiologically, mentally, and spiritually etc. with the potential to function in an intimate lifelong relationship with a helpmate of the opposite sex.
QUESTION 2 - If same-sex couples can't marry, what do you think about same-sex couples being able to formalise their relationship in some other way (eg registration)?
We object to registering same sex relationships and treating them identically to the registering of a true marriage involving partners of the opposite sex. Marriage is valuable to the state, and is much more than a contract or property deal even when viewed from a purely secular position. In fact, from the Christian framework it is of a totally different order. The establishment of counterfeit marriage systems is not in the interest of the state, and the state should do all in its power to protect marriage from counterfeits, as it does with regard to counterfeit currency. If a bogus Ministry of Justice was set up with the full authority of Parliament carrying out functions detrimental to true justice, there would be an outcry!
QUESTION 3 - How do you think registration should work?
We are opposed to the registration of all non-marriage relationships as marriages. The establishment of inferior substitutes called "marriage" would subvert the sanctity of marriage.
QUESTION 4 - What are your views about opposite-sex de facto couples being able to formalise their relationships in some other way (e.g. registration)?
We cannot see any good reason for registration of opposite-sex de facto relationships as these people, if they so desire the benefits of marriage, are able to get married. We oppose the setting up of any other relationship register.
QUESTION 5 - Do you think same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex couples to jointly adopt children?
ABSOLUTELY NO!
We support the current legislation, as it stands, with its emphasis on the 'best interests of the child' concerned. Children develop properly when they are brought up by a father and a mother. To allow same sex couples to adopt children in our opinion undermines the family unit, which is the basic building block within our society. To allow such adoptions would place children in an environment where there cannot be proper role modeling or normal socialization.
QUESTION 6 - In what circumstances do you think a same-sex couple ought to be able to have joint legal parent status?
When they are both actually (and indisputably) the biological parents. Which is in no circumstances.
QUESTION 7 - What are your views about same-sex couples being able to be joint parents of a child born from an assisted human reproductive procedure that they both agree to?
We are opposed to same sex couples being joint parents of a child born by an assisted human reproductive procedure. Both individuals are not able to be involved biologically, because it is not naturally possible.
To allow same sex couples to parent children via an assisted human reproductive procedure, in our opinion undermines the family unit, which is the basic building block within our society. Such practices place children in an environment without normal socialization or normal parental role models. This is because when a child is bought into the world the child ideally should have contact with both a male and female parent.
QUESTION 8 - What is your opinion of a same-sex couple both having the right to parental leave if one of them gives birth or adopts a child?
The status quo is adequate. We are opposed to 'parental leave' being given to anyone except parents.
QUESTION 9 - What are your views about same-sex and opposite-sex couples being assessed in the same way for income support purposes?
We oppose same sex couples being assessed in the same way as opposite sex partners for income support services.
Being opposed to the legal recognition of the same sex couple, the individual should continue to be treated as they were before the relationship (an individual would continue to be an individual, and a 'liable parent' would continue to be a 'liable parent').
QUESTION 10 - What are your views about same-sex and opposite-sex couples being assessed in the same way for tax credit entitlement?
We are opposed to same sex and opposite sex couples being assessed in the same way as married couples for income tax purposes.
Being opposed to the legal recognition of the same sex couple, the individual should continue to be treated as they were before the relationship (an individual would continue to be an individual, and a 'liable parent' would continue to be a 'liable parent').
QUESTION 11 - What are your views about same-sex couples being assessed in the same way as opposite-sex couples when it comes to deciding whether people are eligible for legal aid?
We disagree with same sex couples being assessed in the same way as married couples when it comes to deciding eligibility for legal aid. Being opposed to the legal recognition of the same sex couple, the individual should continue to be treated as they were before the relationship.
QUESTION 12 - What do you think about there being a law on dividing property when same-sex relationships break down?
We object to there being an extra law about dividing property when a same sex couple's relationship ends because the law as it currently stands (common law, including the doctrine of constructive trust with regard to property) is adequate.
QUESTION 13 - What are your views on the law on custody and access being changed to take account of same-sex relationships?
We oppose custody and access being changed to take account of same sex relationships. We support the law as it stands. We are opposed to any legislation that would allow (malicious) challenges to a child-parent (biological or adoptive) relationship.
We have assumed that this question does not relate to the situation of a heterosexual relationship where a partner leaves to follow a homosexual lifestyle. In this case we would expect the law to support the abandoned partner in all matters including custody and control of access.
QUESTION 14 - What is your opinion of the law being changed to recognize same-sex couples when a partner dies without a valid will?
We disagree with changing the law to recognize same sex partners when a partner dies without a will. No change is required. If any individual wants to make provision for another individual they can draw up a will.
QUESTION 15 - What are your views about same-sex partners being able to make claims against the estate of a dead partner who hasn't properly provided for them?
We oppose changing the Family Protection Act to allow same sex partners to make claims against a dead partner who has not provided for them.
QUESTION 16 - In your opinion, what areas of the law need to be changed so that same-sex relationships are recognized in the way opposite-sex relationships are when a partner dies?
None.
You're also welcome to give your views on any related issues you think are important.
We are disturbed to have questions that are so loaded for change. The bias of the question formulators is obvious. This is especially so when the proposed changes in the questions are not required by the Human Rights Act or Consistency 2000, as implied by the introduction to the discussion paper. We are opposed to the legal recognition of same sex relationships (in life and in death). We are opposed to the proposal in the De Facto Relationships (Property) Bill that marriage benefits be conferred upon non-married people..Why a debate now?
|