Capitulation by English on Marriage ‘Shocking’

Media Release 12 December 2016
Family First NZ is shocked and disappointed by comments by new Prime Minister Bill English that he would now vote for same-sex ‘marriage’.

“It is incredible how quickly Mr English has flip-flopped on the issue. Even the incoming US President Donald Trump has acknowledged the law without changing his position. Contrary to Bill English’s opinion that changing the definition has ‘affirmed’ marriage, it has simply confused and denied the obvious cultural and natural character of marriage and the subsequent creation and care of children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Parliament simply inserted a lie in to the law which English correctly voted against at the time. Nothing has changed since. The equality cause is not advanced by destroying or confusing institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it. There was no discrimination in the law as it stood.”

“We are now using the word to describe something else – not commonly or traditionally conceived, but conceived by politics and political correctness,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“With the accompanying consequence of changes to adoption laws which English fails to address, politicians also weakened the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults. A child has a right to a mum and a dad. We should not set out in public policy to deny a child that basic right. This is not a sexuality issue. This is a gender issue. The gender of the parents does matter to a child.”

“Marriage ‘equality’ was never about equality because there are people who are still not able to marry. The concern is now whether Bill English will resist pushes for extending the definition of marriage to allow for polygamy and group marriage, based on his justification for changing his opinion on same-sex marriage,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“In 2004, the government introduced Civil Unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for other forms of relationships. The State should not have presumed to re-engineer a natural human institution of marriage – and Mr English knew that.”

Written by