Gay marriage has 'grounds to discriminate' - Colin Craig

Email
Print

'OK to discriminate' on gay marriage

3News NZ

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig (file)

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig (file)

Opponents of a proposed law change that would allow gay couples to marry have appeared before a select committee looking into the issue.

A total of 20,000 submissions have been made on Labour MP Louisa Wall's private members bill.

The debate is a global one.

President Obama has endorsed gay rights.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law and if we truly are created equal then surely the love we commit to one another should be equal as well.”

But 800,000 French men and women took to the streets to oppose gay marriage last week.

Two of the debate’s most outspoken critics spoke before the select committee looking into a proposed change this evening.

Christian group Family First presented a petition signed by 72,000 who want marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

Group director Bob McCroskie said marriage rules are there for a reason.

“Marriage rightly discriminates - a 14 year old cannot get married, three or four people cannot get married to each other, a person who is currently married cannot marry another person, a father cannot marry an adult daughter.”

But Labour list MP Moana Mackey did not like Mr McCroskie’s analogy.

“I find it very offensive that you're likening same sex marriage to saying we should allow fathers and daughters to marry,” she said.

However, Mr McCroskie then seemed to backtrack.

“I've been careful to say if you say consenting adults want to form a relationship, who are we to discriminate.”

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he believed civil unions allowed for same sex couples to have equal legal rights, and sometimes observing differences served a purpose.

“There are grounds to discriminate on certain things. If you said to me, ‘do I think there should be separate toilet facilities when it comes to men and women’, ‘yes I do’.”

The select committee will report back to Parliament in late February.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

16/04/2013 9:14:23 p.m.

Boyd wrote:

Indeed Michell. There are MP's in Parliament who oppose gay marriage. We should be paying more attention to them than Colin Craig.

10/04/2013 3:05:44 p.m.

frank wrote:

Michell ...So you think you know better than Colin Craig ??? well good for you,and your views are better.I look forward to reading what you have to say on this subject

11/03/2013 2:31:04 p.m.

Michell wrote:

Why does Colin Craig seem to get more attention for his ridiculous views than the actual opposition?

2/03/2013 2:03:29 p.m.

mark . wrote:

its a waste of time you cant teach sinners the things of gods word . they are blind blind blind until god in his grace opens their eyes . these people wanting gay this and that are just for filling gods word as its been before hand written in the bible . the world is going up in fire vary soon now and your only hope is acts 2v38 . they are fools having sinned away the day of grace .deceived by the reason of their own hearts the tree knowledge of good and evil the tree of death . mans wisdom always leads to death i don't care how reasonable it sounds it sounded reasonable to eve in the garden of eden it leads to death . only now to the second death eternal separation from god because thats what they want a godless existence with their lord Satan in the lake of fire .thats were this lost world is going .

31/01/2013 12:42:01 a.m.

Sarah wrote:

Remember in the sixties when people used the 'separate but equal' principle to justify discriminating against black people and their basic human rights? This whole 'gays have civil unions, straights have marriage' is the same thing. Remember when people said that letting black people use the same books/bathrooms/bus seats would promote disease? Remember when people said allowing interracial marriage would cause unnatural families and deviant behaviour? It was ridiculous right? Well in 20 years, when i'm (hopefully) married to a nice girl and raising a family with her, i'll look back on all of your ridiculous arguments against marriage equality and shake my head the same way i do when i look back on the fight for racial equality. Kathy; you are a true christian amongst the bigots and hate mongers who hide behind a bible that was ultimately written and interpreted by man. You are lovely and your support means a lot.

27/01/2013 8:10:07 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

@Jacob marriage was a property rights contract that allowed a male to rape his property if he so felt like it right into the 20th century. That has changed, so obviously marriage can be redefined. Unless you think that taking us back to the early 20th century and allowing men to rape their wives again is a good thing. Marriage was only ever a property rights contract and had nothing to do with distinguishing between the sex's.

27/01/2013 12:12:27 a.m.

Tani Newton wrote:

It's ridiculous for lawmakers to talk about discrimination as a bad thing because the whole purpose of law is to discriminate about who can and can't do things. If there were no discrimination, there would be no law. It's a red herring. What we should talk about is where the law's discrimination should fall. In this case, I believe it's falling in the right place as it is now - but we can't get to that kind of moral specific from principles like non-discrimination. They are simply too vague, and so provide politicians with a handy way of seeming to debate the issue without actually discussing it at all.

26/01/2013 11:32:20 a.m.

Carlos wrote:

Its Ok to discriminate, because gay marriage should not even exist. Stop encouraging anchoring in poo-bay. Sadist behavior must never be tolerated, ever.

26/01/2013 10:43:08 a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Dan.. agree with you entirely except that why do we have such outmoded traditions of prayers in parliament and daft blessings at any occasion from drownings to opening of new buildings? It all should go except for private functions.

25/01/2013 6:10:33 p.m.

Jacob wrote:

Religion aside, marriage acknowledges the differences between male and female – both the physical and psychological characteristics. These differences can’t be changed by law in the same way law can’t make it possible for men to give birth…although I’ve no doubt the day will come when this will be debated… Male/female differences are entirely different to those between two men or two women. That’s why it’s impossible to recreate marriage – gay couples aren’t of the opposite gender and never can be. So marriage isn’t available to them. Just like a same-sex civil union isn’t for me – because my wife and I are of opposite genders, not the same gender. I don’t feel discriminated against – in fact, this entire debate has nothing to do with discrimination or inequality. However, if the definition of marriage does change, then it will certainly become discrimination. For these reasons, many gay people don’t want to see marriage recreated - they too are trying to protect it as it has been for generations before us. Those cowering to peer pressure and supporting this change, simply do not understand the confusion and damage generations after us will experience. Why not just leave it alone?