New Zealand Approves Gay Marriage

April 21, 2013 in Top News, World News

Same Sex Marriage Rally Wellington New Zealand

Demonstrators march and rally in support of same sex marriage in Wellington, New Zealand last August. Source: Fightback.

New Zealand’s Parliament voted to approve gay marriage on Wednesday, April 17 with a 77-44 favorable vote. The vote reflected minimal defection from the 78-40 approval given the first reading of the bill last August.

Conservative opposition to the measure promises to continue to fight gay marriage in spite of the bill’s passage.

“We have seen the public vote disregarded on law and order, on the number of MPs and on the Anti-Smacking Bill. Parliament’s unwillingness to even put the marriage issue to the people sadly comes as no surprise,” said Colin Craig, Conservative Party leader of New Zealand

Family First, an organization describing itself as “advocating principles for building marriages and parenting today’s children” garnered 50,000 signatures in a grassroots campaign to do away with the law. Since submission of those signatures, Al Jazeera reports the group has obtained an additional 25,000 signatures.

Wednesday’s vote makes New Zealand the 13th nation to legalize gay marriage, and the first Asian-Pacific nation to do so. Passage of the bill follows gay marriage approval in Uruguay just one week before. France is expected to follow with a vote finalizing approval of gay marriage rights in the near future – possibly as soon as this Tuesday according to The Guardian.

3 thoughts on “New Zealand Approves Gay Marriage

  1. Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui says:

    Same-sex marriage is antithetical to the Rule of Law, for the principle object of laws in general is to correct bad inclinations, to prevent vicious habits, to hinder their effects, and to eradicate the passions; or at least to contain them within proper limits. Same-sex marriage makes an implicit statement that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrelevant to parenting. Once same-sex marriage becomes legally and socially acceptable, more women will decide to raise children together. Teen aged boys without fathers are at risk for juvenile delinquency, violence, criminal activity, gang membership, and incarceration. Teen aged girls without fathers are at risk for early sexual activity, multiple sex partners, out of wedlock pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease.

    After what has been said, let us be satisfied with observing, that the fitness in favor of the sanction of traditional marriage, is so much stronger and more pressing, as same-sex marriage throws into the system of humanity an obscurity and confusion, which borders on very much upon the absurd, if it does not come quite close up to it. There is, certainly, no comparison between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, in respect to beauty and fitness; the first is a work of the most perfect reason; the second is defective, and provides no manner of remedy against a great many disorders. Now even this alone points out sufficiently on which side the truth lies and to reject this thought leads us insensibly to a kind of pyrrhonism, which would also be a subversion of the Rule of Law and social order.

    Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

    Same-sex marriage proponents demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer less-than-equal protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents.

    Same-sex marriage proponents profess that it is love which gives the right to join the institution of marriage, yet, in doing so, they selfishly violate the principle loving objective of this noble institution; to protect a child’s Natural Right to be raised by both biological parents.

    In fine, same-sex marriage surmounts to nothing more than an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.

    “No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant

    • Chris Spolarich says:

      Although your bias is ever so eloquent, it is exactly that: anti-gay bias. First of all, you have absolutely NO evidence that children raised by two gay parents are any worse off than children raised by two opposite-sex parents.

      The statistics you are using apply to children raised by single parents, and I’m not going to dispute them; however, you haven’t sited any of the research that shows the effects on children being raised by two gay parents. The reason for that is because all of the research that has been done to date, that hasn’t been discredited, shows that children raised by two gay parents are no worse off than children raised by two straight parents. In fact, research shows that in some cases children raised by two gay parents have sometimes fared BETTER.

      But you’re not going to site those statistics are you? Because it doesn’t allow you to make the case to justify the fact that you just don’t like gay people.

      For you to assert that the sole purpose of marriage is for raising children is just factually wrong. If that were the case then we would not allow elderly people to marry, or people who are infertile, or people who are incarcerated. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 14 times, that marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens. The opponents of marriage equality have used every excuse under the sun to justify the banning of gay marriage, because simply not approving of gay relationships isn’t a legally justifiable reason.

      They have said that the reason for banning marriage equality is to “protect traditional marriage” yet there is NOT A SHRED of evidence to support the argument that allowing gay people to marry each other has any effect whatsoever on the individual marriages of straight people.

      Now as far as your assertion that gay relationships are somehow defective or evil by their very nature…my question to you is: according to whom? To you? To religious zealots? How about the American Medical Association? Or the American Psychiatric Association? The argument you’re making has no merit and finding justification to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens has proven to be fruitless for those seeking to persecute those who disagree with their religious beliefs.

      In this country, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, not equal protection under the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or Grimm’s Fairy Tales. If you’re going to make an argument supporting a belief, that’s fine. My beliefs dictate that I wear purple underwear on Tuesdays. Should the law require everyone to wear purple underwear on Tuesdays? I don’t think so. That’s not how we do things here. But if you’re going to make an argument using the law to justify your vitriol, perhaps you’d be better armed with facts, not rhetoric.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Page not found - Sweet Captcha
Error 404

It look like the page you're looking for doesn't exist, sorry

Search stories by typing keyword and hit enter to begin searching.

Please support the Hammill Post!
By clicking any of these buttons you help our site to get better