A Piece of Idiocy

Before the vote is taken on same-sex ‘marriage’ (for all I know, it’s all over already, but I’ve got better things to do than hang on the lips of Parliamentarians) I’d like to advertise my opposition to this piece of idiocy by publishing the email I sent to Louisa Walls, John Key, David Shearer, Russel Norman and Hone Harawira:

 

I wish to express my opposition to the same-sex ‘marriage’ Bill, and please be assured I will not give my party vote to Labour if you vote in favour of it. My reasons for opposing this abysmally silly proposal follow, and please note also that THIS IS NOT A FORM LETTER.

 

The traditional family, of children growing up with their biological parents, is the basis and heart of New Zealand society, indeed of civilisation.

 

Evidence has been collated and published overseas of less favourable outcomes for children of same-sex ’marriages’.

 

Children already face difficulties and encounter pressures unknown to previous generations. Depriving them of one of their biological parents (an inevitable consequence of same-sex ‘marriage’) will mean more tax revenue siphoned off to meet increased expenditure in hospitals, schools and the courts to meet a much greater demand for their services.

 

NZ voters were assured, after the passing of the Civil Unions Act, that all demands for equality of homosexuals with heterosexuals had been met and there would be no further legislation on this matter. Parliament has in fact misled the public.

 

Support for same-sex ‘marriage’ has dropped sharply since the introduction of the bill. Many New Zealanders to whom it initially appealed because of our sense of fairness and equality now realise homosexuals already have equality guaranteed by the Civil Unions Act. So fairness is not the issue – except of course, to children who would lose their natural role models and traditional family support.

 

Members of Parliament who vote for this Bill are ignoring their largest constituency, the ‘baby-boomers’ who have 40+ years of emotional, mental, financial and more often than not, spiritual investment in their marriages.

 

By no means do all homosexuals want same-sex ‘marriage’. Parliament has kowtowed to a tiny, politically correct, time- and money-rich, vociferous minority.

 

If same-sex ‘marriage’ can be legalised, then so can polygamous and polyandrous ‘marriage’.

 

Experience of gay ‘marriage’ overseas shows that marriage celebrants who object to gay marriage have been heavily fined or otherwise penalised for refusing to conduct such ceremonies.

 

I’m disillusioned by the shabby treatment meted out by the Select Committee to people making submissions against this Bill, which was impolite to say the least, and the speed with which it’s been rammed through Parliament, which is unfair and undemocratic.

I can only hope that you and all Members of Parliament who voted for this nonsense will realise before it’s too late that reason has been sacrificed to emotion.

Julia du Fresne Kynoch