A sample of pro-gay-marriage submissions to the select committee—some doozies

The following pro-gay-marriage submissions are from the first three pages of the 2887 submissions shown on the government’s website-select-committee page. These were accepted on the basis that they were deemed ‘unique content’ by the select committee. I have removed all names and personal information for privacy reasons and have highlighted some interesting points within each submission and have commented below.

However, first read part of the submission process below as given in the select committee report:

“Submissions process

We received 21,533 submissions on this bill. We considered that 18,635 of these submissions replicated content in a very similar manner; 10,487 were in favour of the bill and 8,148 were against the bill. The purpose of submissions is to inform the committee of issues it may wish to consider when recommending amendment to the bill. Where a number of submissions raise the same issue in the same way, it is not an effective use of committee time to hear evidence from each of these submitters (particularly where there is such a large number of submissions). However, these submitters can be assured that we received, read, and considered all of the points they raised.

We considered that 2,898 submissions presented unique content.”

As you read keep in mind they rejected 18,635 because they were considered to be replicated content (form submissions), and they accepted the following ten as they were considered unique content. In addition keep in mind what they also said in their report:

“We were impressed by the participation of young people in this debate. We received heartfelt submissions from youth on both sides of the debate. We are heartened that so many of the younger generation, which is so often maligned as uninterested in politics and marriage, chose to involve themselves in this debate.”

The following submissions should give you an insight into the liberal mind; you will see how they all use emotive language like love, saddens me, bullying, caring, devoted, meaningful, and heart breaking, etc., and feel-good liberal language like equality, discrimination, embrace diversity, equal rights, inferiority, prejudices, two-tier system, tolerant world, fair, deserve, enlightened, marginalisation, human rights, and celebrate equality, etc.

One:

Comment: Yes, this is an official submission. Is this what the select committee is so proud of; is this what they consider unique? If this is what the kept, what did they throw out?

Two:

Dear Select Committee,

I am writing to express my strong support for marriage equality in New Zealand. Personally, I currently do not want to be part the institution of marriage in its current form. The legislation as it currently stands creates a two-tiered structure for recognizing relationships and I do not want to be part of an institution that is not accessible to all of the people in my life without discrimination. All couples should be able to have their love and commitment recognized as equal regardless of sexual orientation. I find the discrimination in this uncomfortable and heartbreaking.

Secondly, and very importantly, there is extensive research evidence of the effects of discrimination and prejudice on the wellbeing of LGBT people. Legitimizing same sex relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships, would be an important part of reducing stigma and the discrimination experienced LGBT people in New Zealand. In doing this, I believe New Zealand would be making a strong stand in saying that it is a society that values the right to safety and wellbeing of ALL its citizens.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Comment: The writer bases everything on emotion and gives not one word how gay marriage would benefit New Zealand. He/she mentions safety and wellbeing for all citizens; does that include the safety of adopted children who will be exposed to the gay lifestyle; does that include the safety of children who will be indoctrinated in schools with gay propaganda? I think not.

Three:

I am writing in SUPPORT of the marriage (definition of marriage) amendment bill. By perpetuating a two-tier system when there is opportunity to change it, the New Zealand Parliament will enshrining inequality and a sense of inferiority. I strongly believe that MPs have a responsibility to ensure absolute equality for all New Zealanders that transcends party politics or personal beliefs. Thanks to the bravery and perspicacity of Louisa Wall, MPs are in the privileged position to make a positive change for NZ and for global LGBT rights.

Furthermore, to oppose this amendment would be an utterly irresponsible message for our rangatahi and tamariki. MPs have an obligation to ensure our young people grow up in a more tolerant world than the one we grew up in ourselves, and don’t inherit the prejudices we did.

MPs should also ask themselves what kind of message a 'NO' vote sends out to the other developed nations who look to NZ as a leader in democracy, equality and human rights? I would suggest it would make us look old-fashioned, reactionary and lacking confidence or courage of convictions.

Personally, I do not believe this should be a debate in the first place. But we live in a democracy, and that is how things must be done. As an MP, you represent your electorate, but you also shape the future of NZ. So please let it be one that embraces diversity, but gives everyone equal rights and standing.

Thank you

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Comment: Again the writer bases everything on feel-good politics and doesn’t mention how gay marriage will benefit society; how the advancement of homosexuality will benefit us. He/she suggests that if New Zealand doesn’t say yes to gay marriage we would appear reactionary; so in essence he/she is saying if we don’t adhere to the liberal agenda we are somehow not ‘enlightened.’ I would have thought by not blindly following other countries like lost sheep we would be more ‘enlightened.’

Four:

Item of business : Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Submission name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I support ending discrimination and granting marriage equality. New Zealand has always been a frontrunner for promoting equal rights, but in this case we are lagging behind

Comment: So this two-sentence submission gets accepted but my forty-page submission supported by studies doesn’t? No bias there?

Five:

Submission to the Government Administration Committee on

Marriage (definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

I support the Bill and ask the select committee to report favourably on the Bill.

I believe strongly in human rights, including those for people who identify as other than heterosexual. From this perspective I think that it is important that all couples who so choose are able to marry. The present Marriage Act and Civil Union Act discriminates against same sex couples.

I am a lesbian who is happily in a civil union. At the time of our union (2009) and since I have been aware that it is second best to marriage.

Legally we cannot call our union marriage. If this is not changed and the Bill is enacted as it stands we would have to divorce, wait two years then marry. This would not be practical as we would in those two years lose those legal rights we do have (particularly next of kin rights). I ask you to recommend that those who have had a civil union can change this to marriage.

I thank the Select Committee for your attention.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Comment: Once again, feel good language is used without one word of how the promotion of homosexuality is going to advance society. I noticed that she said she was happy in a civil union but then she felt it was second best to marriage, so she is happy and unhappy at the same time—typical double-think liberal.

Six:

Item of business : Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Submission name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If I ever fall in love with a woman again, and its the real thing, I would want to marry her.

I loved a woman once. I had every intention of being with her forever. I love a man now and there's no difference. The love is just as strong, just as meaningful. Gender makes no difference. Love is love and should be recognized and celebrated equally.

Please stop discriminating. Please allow me to love who I want and marry the person I someday chose to spend my life with. No matter what gender they may be.

Comment: This submission is all about emotion and nothing more. He/she mentions the word ‘love’ seven times in three short paragraphs. The submission is completely about me me me; every word is about him/her and not one word about society.

Seven:

To the Government Administration Select Committee

Dear Select Committee Members

I support marriage equality for all New Zealanders and I support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I urge you to progress this Bill.

Marriage is a legal institution that should be open to all New Zealanders. All kiwis are equal before the law, and our legislation should be fair, equal and should not discriminate.

Allowing homosexual couples to marry takes away nothing from heterosexuals, and there are no arguments against allowing marriage equality which are not based in irrational religious belief. It saddens me that, in 2012, people still seem to need myths and legends to justify and rationalise their own prejudices, but the Government should play no part in continuing this stone age and unenlightened practice.

To summarise, where marriage is concerned, the Government must simply "get out of the way" and allow private citizens of any sexual orientation to express their love via the contract and institution of marrige.

Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Comment: Once again the writer bases everything on feel-good politics without justifying how homosexuality is going to advance society. I did find the line about how gay marriage isn’t going to take away from heterosexuals a tad amusing, however. If gay indoctrination in schools is not going to take away from heterosexual parents’ rights, I don’t know what is. What about the adopted child’s rights? No thought about that either. And then he/she said that all apposing arguments are based on religion. What utter nonsense—some are, some aren’t.

Eight:

Submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

To the Parliamentary Select Committee,

Personal Details xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This submission is from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, a daughter, sister, soon to be teacher and a lesbian. I am happy to appear before the committee to speak to my submission; I can be contacted at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I support the intent of this bill because just as my fore fathers did not have the right to judge whether inter-racial marriage was lawful, be it through religious, social or emotional perspectives. How do we today, having the ability to acknowledge these views were extreme, once again judge who can and cannot get married, this time based on their sexual orientation.

I am a New Zealander, I contribute to society, I am a good person, a successful young women and I have served my country. I was willing to give up my life for my country, protect our boarders and protect the rights of the vulnerable. I ask whether my country is willing to protect me and my rights to marriage in return. In a country whose founding document is formed on the basis of equality and acceptance, is by denying the right of marriage equality a fair and just decision? I am not equal to my peers, is my life not worth just as much as someone else’s? Is my love different because I am gay?

As a teacher in training I am forced to question, by denying equal opportunities to marriage, the message we are sending our children. Marginalisation is okay, it is okay to settle for nearly equal. If marginalisation is accepted and nearly fair is tolerated, does that mean we are promoting bullying through exclusion of certain children because they are different? Does that give each and every child no matter their gender, race or sexual orientation equal rights in education, as stated in the New Zealand curriculum?

I am in full support of this bill, who I choose to love should be my choice and only my choice.

Kind Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Comment: This woman started off better than some of the others but soon turned to me me me and the typical ‘equality’ rhetoric. So she is going to be a teacher—heaven forbid. She says denying gay marriage is going to send the wrong message to children. So, in essence, she is suggesting that the promotion of anal sex and AIDs is a good message to send to children? New Zealand’s schools are full of these mind-bending, gender-bending idiots, and we certainly don’t need any more of them.

Nine:

Item of business : Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Submission name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Equality is the cornerstone of modern New Zealand society. I support this Bill for three reasons:

1. I don't want my cousin to feel like a second class citizen. New Zealand is a progressive society, why are we not embracing diversity?

Why should my cousin enjoy less civil liberties just because she is a lesbian? My cousin felt alienated from society, she felt put in a little box because she was only eligible for a civil union and not a proper marriage.

2. My cousin and her partner are the most caring, devoted parent their little four year old girl that I have ever encountered. Why should my cousin enjoy full guardianship rights and not her partner?

Both are devoted, kind, wonderful parents. Both deserve equal rights.

3. If you pass this Bill into law, you'll win votes on election day.

Just sayin'...

Comment: Again we have the same emotional, feel-good language applied without any thought to society as a whole. I noticed the third point he/she raised was an attempt to bribe members of the select committee which was a waste of time as they had already decided on their pro-recommendation before the process even began.

Ten:

Comment: A virtually unreadable submission was accepted and my typed one wasn’t? And you may have noticed he/she uses the possessive pronoun ‘your’ in “your country leads in many areas…” which strongly suggests that this person is not even a New Zealander, yet this submission was accepted.

Conclusion:

Overall, none of these people offered anything in their submissions that illustrated how the mainstreaming of the homosexual lifestyle would benefit society. Primarily, their concerns are about themselves and not about the overall societal good. Obviously, there are some better submissions than what I have shown here, but generally speaking they are all of the same theme; me first and society second.

I have only read the first sixty submissions on the select-committee page of which approximately 30 were opposed to gay marriage. Of the 30 pro-gay-marriage submissions, almost half appear to be from gays, which clearly indicates that all gay submissions have been accepted.

If only New Zealanders really knew how much they have been railroaded by this select committee.