Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Megan Wegan,
Basically, the only think I know is that when I am handed a marriage licence form, it says that it "authorises but does not require" me to marry the couple.
The joys of legislation written in 1955.
Remember in interpreting that that you need to do so in a manner consistent with the BORA. Which obviously means that it will not permit discrimination on the basis of grounds prohibited by the HRA.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
But they cannot be forced to conduct an action against their religious beliefs, thanks to section 15.
While it has IIRC never come up in New Zealand, international caselaw from similar jurisdictions (notably Canada) suggests that the courts will not interpret freedom of religion to allow public servants or those carrying out duties specified by law to abuse their position to impose their religious views on others.
(I should note of course that this applies only to the public function of being a marriage celebrant. Who churches choose to do quack for is entirely their own business, and no business of the state. The problem here is that they are confusing their quack with a public, legal role which comes with some very strong strings attached. Or, in English, confusing marriages with weddings)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Hebe,
what happens if the "suggestions" are ignored.
They'll invoke their new Local Government Act amendments to roll the council and install a dictatorship, just like they did to ECan.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to TracyMac,
To solve some quandaries about religion vis a vis marriage, there is a simple solution: go the German model, and make legal marriage the sole purview of the civil authorities.
It already is.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sacha,
I imagine that's a fair reflection of the beliefs of their supporters.
Sadly, I agree. Fortunately, demographics will gradually take its course there.
(And I wonder how they'd fell about a referendum on euthanising at 65. What? Its a matter of fundamental rights, you say? Exactly)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
It takes out two reported "yes" votes.
But in some ways I'm glad NZ First has decided to take a party position on this: now we know they're a bigot party, which thinks people's fundamental rights should be subject to the goodwill of others. People should remember that when voting.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
That's the civil function, though, right?
Yes. Which is what marriage is in this country.
From a religious point of view, marriage is a sacrament, and the state can no more dictate whom they administer that it to than they can Last Rites.
And the sacrament should be the only thing the churches are worried about.
I agree entirely. Sadly, some religious institutions don't. But of they keep conflating the civil legal public function of marriage celebrants with their quack, then they're eventually going to get burned, and burned badly.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
No. They're already not forced to enact opposite-sex marriage ceremonies they disapprove of - ie the Catholic church is allowed to refuse to marry non-Catholics.
Actually, they are forced to conduct them, thanks to ss3(b) and 19 of the BORA, and the civil nature of marriage in New Zealand. Any marriage celebrant who refuses to solemnise the marriage of a non-Catholic is unlawfully discriminating on the basis of religion, and any marriage celebrant who refuses to solemnise the marriage of someone who has been previously divorced is unlawfully discriminating on the basis of family status. If that celebrant is a Catholic priest (and Catholic priests are celebrants by default for historical reasons), then they're effectively writing a large cheque on behalf of the Pope.
The reason that the Pope hasn't had to sign any such cheques yet is because people strongly prefer a celebrant who wants to marry them, rather than one who will ruin their happy day, so it doesn't come up. But its always an option if one wants to teach the bigots an object lesson.
This isn't new. Religion lost this battle in the C19th sometime, when we passed civil marriage and made them agents of the state in solemnising it.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If politicians don't know who is giving them money, they can't do them any favours.
And if you believe they don't know, I have a round building in Wellington to sell you.
-
Labour's Phil Twyford has apparently just lodged a Privilege complaint against Brownlee over this. As noted above, it will almost certainly fail - a secondary question is not "a statement of some formality", so MPs apparently have carte blanche to lie and mislead. But by doing so, he signals that its not OK, and pushes for further reform. Which hopefully, one day, we will get.