Labour Party MP Louisa Wall’s bill will come up for conscience voting next month.
In its submission to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, the Urdu Hindi Cultural Association of New Zealand said the organisation had “serious concerns” about the bill.
“The above organisation represents members from various cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds,” association president Nafis Akhtar said.
“The members have some serious concerns about this Member’s Bill on the following grounds: Under the explanatory note, the general policy statement states that ‘this Bill amends the Marriage Act 1955 (the principal Act) to ensure that its provisions are not applied in a discriminatory manner.’ It further states that “marriage as a social institution, is a fundamental human right and limiting that human right to one group of society only does not allow for equality”.
“We strongly dispute that marriage is a social institution only,” Akhtar said.
“For most of our members, it is a religious and/or civil sacrament and has inherent expectation of procreation.
“Same sex marriage goes against this very fundamental belief that we hold very dearly. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
“If the proposed amendment is to be used as a basic human right and as the main driving force behind the proposed amendment, then it will create further discriminations instead of rectifying the ‘current inequality’.
“The law also needs to take into account other groups of people who may also want to exercise their wish/right to a legal marriage, for example people in a polygamous relationship.
“Thus, the proposed act can be challenged at a later date to include polygamous marriages which are also viewed as a ‘social institution’ by many. If a definition of marriage can be amended once, what is to stop it being amended again.”
The submission urged MPs to vote against this bill for the following reason:
* Marriage is a religious and/or civil sacrament and in most ancient traditions is a sacred practice between two genders which has procreation as one of the key outcome of this union. Historically Marriage Act recognises the biological difference between the two genders and accepts a union between two genders. The Civil Union Act 2004 recognises the union between two people irrespective of their gender and sexual orientation.
* Civil Union Act provides most if not all the legal rights to an individual. The only key difference we see is the right to adopt children is afforded to the Civil Union relationships. In that case, the Act that needs to be amended is not the Marriage Act but the Adoption Act.
* It is our contention that amendment to the Marriage Act 1955 is unnecessary and does not address the issue of discrimination as it will set precedent for other types of social relationships to be recognised as marriage e.g. polygamous relationship.
Meanwhile, the New Zealand First Party has renewed calls for a binding referendum to allow the public to have its say on same sex marriage.
Party leader Winston Peters says the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not adequately address the issues and a two-question referendum is required.
• “We need to let the public say whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include same sex couples.
• “We should also be asking if the Civil Union Act should be amended to allow Civil Union couples the same rights as married couples.”
Peters said no political party campaigned strongly for same-sex marriage during the 2011 election, so there was no clear answer as to what New Zealanders wanted.
“These are issues of public morality and thus it should be for the public to decide, not temporarily empowered politicians, particularly those MPs who are adamant that the public should not have its say.
“A referendum is the only way to accurately gauge what the country wants.
“If Louisa Wall believes she has the public’s support, she should be willing to amend her Bill to first include a referendum held at the same time, for example, as the Asset Sales referendum,” Peters said.
Also, MPs from the Labour Party's South Auckland strongholds are divided over a bill which would legalise same-sex marriage, with two concerned it could seriously hurt the party's support in its heartland electorates.
Labour MP for Mangere Su'a William Sio said he would oppose fellow Wall's bill and called for it to be withdrawn.
Mangere was one of three crucial Labour electorates in South Auckland, and he felt the wide opposition from constituents to the bill, particularly from Pacific Islanders, could cost the party at the next election.
Ms Wall, who represented the Manurewa electorate, said she felt much of the opposition was based on misunderstandings of the legislation - one Pacific pastor had told her he "would rather go to jail than marry two people of the same sex".