From: moonen_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:12:03 +1200 Subject: Gay Marriage Dear Friends, Here in New Zealand we are also working on equalityn with the heterosexuals. We are also "threatened" with a "registered partnership", which is still a form of discrimination. We have made an official complant to the Human Rights Commissioner and are waiting for his answer. Kind regards, Gerald Moonen E-mail moonen_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX WELLINGTON Phone XXXXXXXX E-Mail XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX To the Human Rights Commissioner PO Box 5045 Lambton Quay WELLINGTON 15th July 1995 O F F I C I A L C O M P L A I N T Dear Sir, We are a gay couple and have for two years been living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. We have a great love for each other and have decided to make a lifelong commitment to each other and to solemnise our relationship with marriage. On Wednesday the 5th of July we went to the Registrar of Marriages at the Terrace in Wellington to apply for a marriage licence, but we were refused one on the grounds that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The reason for this refusal was "backed up" by a sentence in a pamphlet "Getting Married", published by the Justice Department, which states: "...I, A.B., take you C.D., to be my legal wife (or husband)..." However the last part of the sentence "...or words to a similar effect." as is written in the Marriage Act 1955 were omitted. We submit that the marriage vow can quite easily be phrased: "that I, A.B., take you C.D., to be my legal wedded partner". This would be quite legal as the words of the marriage vow are not fixed within the law. Then on Thursday the 6th of July I spoke by telephone to the Registrar General Mr. J. Rowland for an explanation as to why we were refused, and he quoted us two reasons why this was so: a. That it was against the common law. b. That the Government had set a precedent by giving transsexuals who were born a male, and have undergone a sex-change, the right to marry another man. After this we looked up the Marriage Act 1955 and the Human Rights Act 1993. We will explain why it is false and unlawful that we were refused a marriage licence on the grounds that we were given. We examined the whole of the Marriage Act 1955 and its amendments and weighed every word, but nowhere did we find any indication that a marriage shall only be between a man and a woman. The language in which the Act is written is totally neutral and does not use male or female terms, but describes "partners", "persons" or "parties". We especially refer you to the Marriage Act 1955, Part III "Restrictions on Marriage" ss 15-22 in which all forbidden marriages are spelled out. Also on the back of the NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE there is a list of forbidden marriages. Nowhere in these documents does it state that marriage between the same sex is forbidden. For us marriage is a holy union between two people, who within love and a strong spiritual bond decide to share their lives together. Anybody who has some of the above qualifications has the human right to solemnise this with a public marriage as an indication of their love and commitment. To be discriminated against on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation is against the law under the Human Rights Act 1993 No 82, Part II s 21 (a),(b) & (m) which states that: "For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are: (a) Sex,... (b) Marital status, which means the status of...-(vi) Living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage... (m) Sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation." The discrimination on sex is quite obvious in what we have described above, as we were told that only a man and a woman can marry each other. We feel that we are also discriminated against on the grounds of marital status, as we have been living like this for quite some time now, but we are being prevented from solemnising that status. The discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is that heterosexuals claim the right to marriage for themselves and deny others (homosexual or lesbian) the right celebrate their union. We would like to draw your attention to the argument that the Registrar General Mr. J. Rowland put forward, in that same-sex marriages were against the Common Law. We don't think that this is an argument that has any weight, as he is bypassing the introduction of the new Human Rights Act 1993 No 82 which prohibits the discrimination on the grounds we have explained above. Surely this Human Rights Act overrides the Common Law on those points of discrimination. His second objection was that a precedent has been set with the new law that a transsexual male, who has undergone a sex-change, can marry another man. His argument was that this is an 'exception' that has been granted by the Government. We see this quite differently. In our view it strengthens our position in that it proves that it is possible for a person born as a male to marry another man. As there is nothing in the Marriage Act 1955 that prohibits the marriage between men (or women) the Government cannot grant an 'exception' as, according to the Marriage Act 1955, there is nothing to give an exception from. We can see that a same-sex marriage would create quite a controversy amongst the religions, especially the Christians. However we would like to point out that according to the research of Prof. Dr. John Boswell, which is published in his book about "Same-Sex Unions in the early Christian Church", same-sex marriages were common, and he gives a full description of the ceremonies and the texts that were used during such ceremonies. This leaves no doubt that historically such marriages were solemnised according to the Christian liturgy. But as today non- denominational weddings may be solemnised by celebrants, the status of a religious versus a non-religious marriage has become irrelevant to the execution of the Marriage Act. We are aware that there is talk of introducing a new law that would give some sort of "registration rights" for defacto relationships. Heterosexual defacto couples would still have the option of marrying, while we would have no such right. We feel that this is second best and that such a 'surrogate marriage' is still discriminatory to us, and does not compare with a real marriage. We asked ourselves why it is that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The only solution we could come to was the generation of legitimate children. Historically this was the case, but surely this is no longer applicable in our society. Unless homosexuals are treated equally with hetero- sexuals, with equal rights to marriage, we are still being discriminated against. We respectfully ask you to consider our complaint, and that if you agree with us on the discriminatory nature of the decisions of the Registrars, that you will make a decision in our favour. Yours faithfully, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. ****************************************************************************** To send a message to the entire list "queerplanet", email queerplanet@abacus.oxy.edu This list is run by the program MAJORDOMO@abacus.oxy.edu. *******************************************************************************