Press Release
28 April 2004
MAYOR PROMOTES CIVIL UNION PANTOMIME
Children need to experience the committed love of a mother and a father, NOT witness “a couple of old buggers tying the
knot” in a “civil union” in order to try and legitimise buggery so they can be media “poster boys” in the promotion of
“gay” couple’s ‘rights’ to adopt children.
The Mayor of Wellington, Kerry Prendergast, plans to ‘marry’ “a couple of old buggers” on Sunday 1 May in a “civil
union” ceremony in the Wellington City Council Chambers, followed by a parade in Civic Square celebrating “sexual
diversity” (i.e. homosexuality/buggery and other perversions). This pathetic parasitic pantomime of a ceremony she will
preside over as a registered civil union celebrant, seeks to give effect to a law that its “gay” promoters say
recognises that same sex couples should be treated as “equal” under the law to heterosexual couples who are married. For
example, the sexual relationship of a man who regularly has anal sex and “fisting” sessions with his partner, as well as
enjoys group sex with younger men in gay bars, is somehow declared the same in nature and in principle to the life
affirming love expressed by a committed married heterosexual couple with or without children. Such delusional thinking
is reminiscent of that of a certain emperor and his new ‘clothes’.
But why spoil the ‘fun’ of “a couple of old buggers” by calling their special ‘marriage’ ceremony a “parasitic
pantomime”? Because the comparison is perfectly valid. There is every reason to assess it as a farce: a sad attempt to
try and treat same sex relationships as equivalent to those involving married heterosexuals.
Marriage, an institution recognised by the state and predating the state, can only by definition involve a relationship
between opposite sex partners – one man and one woman – who under the marriage (social) contract become husband and
wife. Any eligible committed heterosexual couple who wants to get their relationship recognised in law can do so by
visiting a Registry Office. The marriage contract can be entered into without any reference to religion.
Marriage involves justifiable discrimination in law as it recognises the fundamental differences between males and
females and the fact that only from the union of opposite-sex partners can children be born into a committed loving
relationship where their rights to have a father and a mother are met. A wealth of social science research shows that
they develop best within a stable, loving marriage involving a mother and a father.
A civil union mimics marriage in almost every feature including: a form of ‘solemnisation procedure’ (the terms
“husband” and “wife” are replaced with “civil union partner”), the requirement of a state -sanctioned celebrant and
witnesses, dissolution procedures etc. and yet the Bill’s supporters claim its intention is to cast aside the cultural
baggage associated with marriage. This is totally dishonest.
A civil union is clearly designed as “marriage for same-sex couples”. It is an unnatural parasite that draws its
sustenance entirely from the virtues that undergird committed marriage (sexual fidelity, faithfulness etc.). Society is
under no legal obligation to provide sanction to any form of sexual intimacy outside marriage! It has a moral duty to
uphold and strengthen marriage and not endorse parasitic mimics that in law have no real meaning.
Nothing in the Human Rights Act 1993 requires the state to open marriage up to opposite sex couples. (the limitations
placed on entry based on gender is a justifiable limitation under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990),
or invent some new form of ‘relationship recognition’ based on intimate sexual activity outside of marriage (e.g.
same-sex relationships, paedophilia, polygamy).
ENDS