MP Maurice Williamson dances to nihilist beat

Frustration abounded in my heart after hearing Maurice Williamson speak in Parliament last week during the so-called “debate” preceding the vote which legalised same-sex marriage in New Zealand.  I haven’t wanted to go there.  His jeering at anyone who opposed the Bill which he and the majority of his colleagues, who supposedly have the citizens of the country’s best interests at heart, upset me too deeply. Thankfully Andre van Heerden has written an amazing analysis of the speech of the new “gay icon”, showing it up for what it really was.  I have reposted this from the NZ Catholic.

MP Maurice Williamson dances to nihilist beat
by ANDRE VAN HEERDEN
From the cheering headlines to the clamour on the social media, one could easily have suspected that a new Martin Luther King had arrived, and that the “I have a Dream” oration had been eclipsed.

Maurice Williamson’s speech to the New Zealand Parliament during the third reading of the bill to redefine marriage prompted a cacophony of ululating, and the unlikely hero was instantly elevated to a celebrity status normally reserved for intellectual heavyweights like Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber.

Yahoo News Canada praised Maurice’s “intelligence and wit”, the New York Times called the speech “rip-roaring and impassioned”, and Ellen DeGeneres asked the National Party’s Demosthenes to appear on her show. Gay Rights bloggers gloated that the dashing knight errant had skewered the otherwise inconsequential arguments of their opponents on his lance.

To be sure, Williamson was by turns impassioned, indignant, and ingratiating, but the lasting impression he left on any rational listener would have been one of unmitigated inanity. The speech was fallacious nonsense from beginning to end.

Let’s take it point by point.

In opening, he immediately set about assailing that favourite target of political hacks — the straw man. Maurice tried ham-handedly to imply that a major part of the opposition to the bill was made up of fundamentalist extremists. It isn’t. Among the many people opposed to a redefinition of marriage, both theist and atheist, are those from different faiths naturally against a move that is contrary to their moral standards, and threatens to involve them in future conflict with the law of the land.

The soft-soaping of this issue by politicians like Williamson simply doesn’t wash after so many of them reneged on the assurances made at the time of the Civil Union legislation several years ago. The recent scandal of 11-year-old girls prostituting themselves in south Auckland reminds one of other false assurances given by politicians like Mr Williamson.

The principal arguments against the redefinition of marriage are not religious at all, and they are the only rational arguments that have been put forward in this debate. All the emotional drivel and demonisation of opponents have come from the proponents of the legislation, and I am not here referring to the inevitable lunatic fringe to be found on both sides.

Alas, Sir Maurice would appear to be part of that inauspicious group of misanthropes. To imply, with snide pleasure, that a Catholic priest is guilty of an unnatural act by virtue of his vow of celibacy, is to betray the lack of even a rudimentary understanding of natural law or the meaning of celibacy. The MP’s embarrassing inability to even pronounce the word correctly, and his admission that “I don’t know what it’s about”, demonstrated that the honourable member is happy to spread calumny regardless of his poverty of understanding.

His putative science lesson merely revealed a laughable deficit of knowledge about science, metaphysics, and theology, but given his audience of post-modern nihilists, why should he be concerned about an inconsequential concept like truth?

The non sequitur he introduced relating to adoption was bizarre, unless one understood it as yet another attempt to defame opponents of the bill. Whatever the law may say, having two parents of the same sex is not the same as having a mother and a father, and there is a wealth of reputable research that indicates distinct advantages for children within the traditional arrangement.

His subsequent rueful reflection on the “evil” of bullying was rather comical for anyone who has watched him in action at a public meeting.
With his emotions now zipping around like pinballs, Maurice was unable to maintain the brief moment of restraint and empathy he contrived to conjure up to appease what he admitted were a huge number of genuinely concerned moderates. Barely into his conciliatory stride, he suddenly slid back into mocking them with the familiar patronising tone that plays so well with his libertarian social policy constituency. Of course, he used the same old “the sun will still come up tomorrow” argument when he supported the decriminalisation of prostitution, overlooking the fact that it also rose over Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Another non sequitur.

The vacuous, emotional argument about “allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage” is simply fallacious, holding up as a conclusion the very question that is under discussion.

Apart from its logical inadequacies, Williamson’s poignant plea tried to sweep under the rug essential facts like the glaringly obvious biological realities, socioeconomic statistics linking traditional family breakdown with burgeoning welfare payments, and the truth affirmed by all parties a few years back that civil unions gave homosexual couples all the legal recognition they needed.

After returning, predictably, to kick the straw man one last time as he prepared to deliver his would-be coup de grace, mellifluous Maurice forgot yet again to check whether he knew what he was talking about. Rustling through his notes, he triumphantly quoted the Bible, pausing briefly to lampoon the very source he was appealing to — “I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of Cats”.

Poor Maurice, apparently, neither believes nor understands the treasure he had stolen from. And that includes the social treasure of marriage, whose meaning, he has clearly admitted, he does not understand.

Read the text of Maurice Williamson’s speech at NZ Catholic.

Advertisements

Same-sex “marriage” and the threat to religious freedom

John-Henry Westen and Rachael Wong outside St Patrick's Cathedral Auckland 14 April 2013The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is due to be read in Parliament for the third and final time tomorrow evening.  If this Bill is passed in the House tomorrow night, it will be legal for same-sex couples to marry and adopt children in New Zealand.  No one will have the right to refuse wedding services (such as venues, flowers, catering) based on their views that marriage can not ever be between two people of the same sex.

Out of concern, Family Life International NZ held two talks given by John-Henry Westen (Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews.com) on the topic – one in Wellington last Thursday night, and the other this past Sunday.  Thousands of people have been blessed with the wisdom of John-Henry over the last two weeks, in particular youth.  Canada is John-Henry’s home, and same-sex marriage has been legal there since 2005.  Enough time has elapsed to see just what the ramifications of legalising same-sex marriage has been for Canadian’s.  New Zealand should heed the warnings.

John-Henry Westen spoke about the following cases where legalising same-sex marriage and normalising homosexual behaviour has led to ordinary citizens finding themselves in trouble with the law.

  • A couple who ran a bed and breakfast refused to let a room to a homosexual couple and kindly asked them to find another bed and breakfast.  As a result the Christian couple were sued and their business was shut down.
  • A printer in a district where there were numerous printing businesses was approached by a customer wishing to have homosexual activist material printed.  The printer, explaining that he disagreed with the material, asked respectfully for the customer to choose another printing company.  Because he refused the printing job, the man was sued and lost his home trying to defend himself.
  • A teacher in Alberta wrote a letter to the editor in support of traditional marriage (note it had nothing to do with what he said in the classroom), and was fired by the school because of his views.
  • A well-known Canadian sportscaster from Toronto was fired after he sent a tweet supporting traditional marriage. He lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, however, it has just been reported that it was dismissed.
  • When same-sex marriage was introduced, marriage commissioners were fired if they were not in support of the legislation.
  • The Knights of Columbus were sued when they refused to hire out a hall in their ownership to a lesbian couple who were wishing to celebrate their union.
  • A Bishop in Calgary was sued $100,000.00 when he wrote the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in the newspaper.
  • In Ontario, a parish priest allowed a same-sex couple to serve at Mass.  There were 15 parishioners who felt that this was not on, given the Church’s teaching about chastity, marriage and homosexuality.  The parishioners wrote to the Bishop expressing their concern.  The Bishop then wrote to the parish priest explaining that it was unacceptable, only to be sued by one of the homosexual men who were serving for $25,000.00.  Each of the parishioners were also sued for $20,000.00.  Thankfully, it was all settled and the charges were dropped.

Each of these concrete examples of persecution because of religious beliefs are shocking.  It is truely concerning when we realise that this is just the beginning.   John-Henry explained the thinking of the gay lobby that is so desperate to transform what is ‘normal’ saying

“The very first and most important point is to stamp out this opposition.  Remember when I said it was likely conscience driven?  Guess what?  Once you pass same sex marriage your conscience is still there.   But then, the thinking goes ‘but that’s because these kind of people exist in society, we’ve got to stamp out this type of racism…’ “Well these catholics these christians they keep raising up this kind of prejudice in their children so we’ve got to get to the children.’ They do it through schools”

The evidence is so shocking of the indoctrination of school children that it will leave your blood running cold.

  • One province has a curriculum which is to be taught in all public schools, all Catholic schools, all private schools and most schockingly, by all home schooling families. The programme teaches relativism of all religious groups and equality of all types of families.  One family, sure that they could not be told what to teach in their home, took a case to the Supreme Court and lost on a technicality.
  • Catholic schools in Ontario have been forced to teach about anti-gay bulling, but are not allowed to educate the children about Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
  • The Education Minister of Yucon has just recently said that Catholic schools are not allowed to teach against homosexuality because it is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is a Charter for all of Canada.

However, John-Henry reminded us that the troubles are worst for those inclined to homosexuality.  He explained that our greatest call and duty as Christians is to love our neighbour citing he Matthew 25:35-40 .

“My brothers and sisters, you have to know that you are called to love… Our brothers and sisters who are inclined to homosexuality are now facing a massive threat with the government stamping approval on this behaviour which they need to know is deadly and we are called to suffer.  And we are called to tell them that it is dangerous for them.  And what about the question ‘when I was inclined to grave sin that would cause my body harm and my soul’s eternal home you didn’t tell me?’  We must love enough to stop same-sex marriage.  We must love enough to tell our brothers and sisters inclined to homosexuality and every other sexual sin that it harms your body and it harms your soul.”

The talk on Sunday, which also included a Prayer Vigil and Procession to St Patrick’s Cathedral in Auckland was concluded by a short synopsis of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill by an Auckland lawyer, Rachael Wong, Rachael explained that the clause inserted to protect religious ministers in the Bill is very narrow, and questionable.  She is also concerned about children and the changes the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill will make to adoption legislation.  She explains that

“a consequential effect of the bill will be to allow same-sex couples to adopt children by giving them status of spouses… This consequential change to our adoption laws clearly impacts children.  And parliament’s failure to consider the best interests of children throughout the entire legislative process is in contravention of its obligations under the UN Convention of Rights of the Child.”

If New Zealand’s politicians truely have the best interests of all our citizens at heart, they will choose to put this Bill to rest tomorrow and keep marriage as a union legally recognised by the State as only being between one man and one woman.

Legal Flaws in NZ’s Marriage Amendment Bill

NZ lawyer Rachel Wong, has grave reservations about the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which will have its third reading in Parliament next Wednesday 17th April. Watch this video to hear some of her concerns about the legislation.

Historic Prayer Vigil for Marriage on Parliament Grounds

NZ Prayer Vigil for Marriage in Parliament GroundsAn historic ecumenical Prayer Vigil to protect traditional marriage took place on Parliament grounds last night, Wednesday 27th March, 2013.

About 600 people attended the Vigil, praying for New Zealand’s politicians that they may have the wisdom and the courage to speak up for marriage as being between one man and one woman.  There was a great cross-section of society present including youth, elderly, baby boomers and young families with their children.

People present at the Vigil were not all against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which politicians were debating through the Committee stage while the Vigil took place.  Approximately 200 mainly younger adults congregated to the side of the Vigil goers, carrying thier rainbow flags, chanting and singing pop songs.

Not everyone who wished to attend could make it down to Wellington for the Vigil.  Many chose to hold prayer vigils in their own homes at the same time, joining their prayers to those at Parliament.

The Bill has now passed through Committee stage, without any amendments.  Organisers are hopeful that the majority of politicians will vote against the Marriage Amendment Bill when it comes up for its third and final reading within the next eight weeks.

New Zealanders in Favour of Traditional Marriage to Attend Prayer Vigil

A just and valid marriage lawPress Release by New Zealanders for Marriage

An outdoor Prayer Vigil in the grounds of Parliament between 6:45 and 8:45 PM this Wednesday evening may give some politicians second thoughts about supporting the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

Prayers will be led by the Catholic Archbishop, John Dew, and other Christians.

A spokesperson for “New Zealanders for Marriage” who are organising the event, says the Prayer Vigil will give a united voice for the preservation of traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

“God, in His loving plan for all people, instituted marriage at the beginning by bringing a woman to a man and it is therefore fitting that we recognise that reality by praying to Him at this time”.

“Changing the legal definition and therefore the meaning of the word marriage doesn’t change what it has always been – a unique covenant between a man and a woman” they say. “Opinion polls have shown that an increasing majority of the public do not support this change, and politicians are asserting their opinions over the will of the people in supporting this bill”.

“It is to be hoped that the hundreds who will take part in this united witness prayer vigil starting at 6.45pm will give this message emphatically.”

End

New Zealanders’ for Marriage is an ad-hoc group who care deeply about marriage and believe that its redefinition, to include people of the same sex, will dilute its God given meaning with negative effects for present and future generations.

Redefining Marriage

Prayer Vigil Parliament Grounds Wellington 6:45pm 27th March 2013It is an important week for marriage. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is at Committee stage, and tomorrow night will be discussed in Parliament.

The media have, over the last weeks, begun to call the Bill the “Marriage Equality Bill”.  It is also referred to as the “same-sex marriage Bill” or “Gay Marriage Bill”.  But let’s call it what it is, a Bill to redefine marriage.  At least Louisa Wall has been honest in the title she has given the legislation.  Ultimately, this Bill is about redefining family to the point that traditional marriage and family (which has been under attack for many decades) can not exist in New Zealand without great persecution.

When marriage and family is attacked, the Holy Trinity is attacked.  When we attack God, we call upon ourselves His wrath.

Family Life International NZ is urging all people of good will to join in the Prayer Vigil for Marriage at Parliament Grounds in Wellington tomorrow evening (Wednesday 27th March 2013), 6:45pm to 8:45pm.  If you are unable to attend, please join us in prayer from where ever you are.  We can no longer afford to be complacent.  This is a spiritual battle.  We must do all we can to stop this Bill from becoming law in our land.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14

Prayer in Defence of Marriage

NZ Gay Marriage Bill Passes Second Reading

A just and valid marriage law

Last night the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill had its second reading in Parliament and was passed 77 votes to 44. The change from the first reading is very small, that reading saw the Bill pass 80 to 40.  It appears MPs believe they have a mandate to pass this legislation through.  The next step is the Committee stage, where the legislation is worked through clause by clause.  It is reported that this Bill could be passed as soon as April, although marriages between same-sex and transgender couples would not be able to take place for another four months after that.

Sadly, many MPs have not listened to those who are against the legislation.  They have been caught up in the “if two people love each other it must be okay” lie.  They have not understood the importance marriage between one man and one woman is to society.  They have failed to listen to the many people who have spoken against same-sex marriage.

The Bill is going through so fast that ordinary New Zealander’s have not had the opportunity to really talk through the facts and the implications this legislation would have on our society.  Too many people support gay marriage, but find the idea of gay adoption a difficult pill to swallow.  How many of those in support would change their minds if they knew the adoption legislation would be changed to allow gay adoption?  What implications will this legislation have for heterosexual couples who wish to adopt, from what is already a pitiful amount of babies and children available for adoption in the country each year anyway?

Fr Linus Clovis, a Canon Lawyer, spoke of a just and valid law in his article “The Church and the Legal Recognition of Homosexual Unions“, he said:

“To be just and therefore lawful and valid, a law cannot benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.  There is therefore reason to be concerned when the institution of marriage, which is available to every man and woman, is tampered with to accommodate the lifestyle choices of a few.”

Louisa Wall’s Marriage Bill (now dubbed a “Marriage Equality Bill), is surely not a just law.  It is a law which serves the minority, who push their militant agenda to redefine marriage and family, and in so doing defile this sacred institution.

How they voted:

Thank you to all the courageous MPs who stood up for true marriage, being between one man and one woman in the second reading of this Bill.

FOR: 77

National: Amy Adams, Chris Auchinvole, Maggie Barry, Paula Bennett, Jackie Blue, Cam Calder, David Carter, Judith Collins, Jacqui Dean, Craig Foss, Aaron Gilmore (new MP), Paul Goldsmith, Jo Goodhew, Tim Groser, Tau Henare, Paul Hutchison, Nikki Kaye, Steven Joyce, John Key, Hekia Parata, Jami-Lee Ross, Scott Simpson, Chris Tremain, Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Maurice Williamson.

Labour: Jacinda Ardern, Carol Beaumont (new MP), David Clark, Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe, Clare Curran, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson, Kris Faafoi, Darien Fenton, Phil Goff, Chris Hipkins, Parekura Horomia, Raymond Huo (did not vote first reading), Shane Jones, Annette King, Iain Lees-Galloway, Andrew Little, Moana Mackey, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard, Sue Moroney, David Parker, Rajen Prasad, Grant Robertson, David Shearer, Maryan Street, Rino Tirikatene, Phil Twyford, Louisa Wall, Megan Woods.

Greens: Steffan Browning, David Clendon, Catherine Delahunty, Julie-Anne Genter, Kennedy Graham, Kevin Hague, Gareth Hughes, Jan Logie, Mojo Mathers, Russel Norman, Denise Roche, Metiria Turei, Eugenie Sage, Holly Walker.

Maori Party: Pita Sharples, Te Ururoa Flavell, Tariana Turia

United Future: Peter Dunne

ACT: John Banks

Mana: Hone Harawira

AGAINST: 44

National: Shane Ardern, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, David Bennett, Chester Borrows, Simon Bridges, Gerry Brownlee (changed vote), Jonathan Coleman (changed vote), Bill English, Chris Finlayson, Nathan Guy, John Hayes, Phil Heatley, Colin King, Melissa Lee, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Tim Macindoe, Todd McClay, Murray McCully (changed vote), Ian McKelvie (changed vote), Mark Mitchell, Alfred Ngaro, Simon O’Connor, Eric Roy, Tony Ryall, Mike Sabin, Katrina Shanks, Nick Smith, Lindsay Tisch, Anne Tolley, Louise Upston, Michael Woodhouse, Jian Yang, Jonathan Young.

Labour: Damien O’Connor, Ross Robertson, Su’a William Sio

NZ First: Asenati Lole-Taylor, Tracey Martin, Winston Peters, Richard Prosser, Barbara Stewart, Andrew Williams, Denis O’Rourke.

Independent:  Brendan Horan