Yet this claim deflects attention from the real issue: what is the true nature of marriage?

Two rival visions jostle for supremacy. The conjugal model says marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. The partnership model says marriage is a contract between committed loving couples.

Conjugal marriage is a comprehensive union (mental and physical, emotional and sexual) of a man and a woman.

Marriage has a true essence, a fundamental core; it is a real phenomenon, not just a human invention or convention.

A crocodile is a crocodile, a tree is a tree, a river is a river. We did not invent crocodiles, we simply discovered them and named them. We can call a hippopotamus a crocodile if we want but that does not change its essential nature.

All it does is lead to confusion.

Marriage is a pre-political institution.

States recognise marriage; they do not invent it. States value the institution in which men and women commit indefinitely and exclusively to each other and to the children their sexual union commonly (but not invariably) produces.

Gay marriage proponents will argue that defines marriage so as to exclude gay couples, a neat trick that fools no-one.

Not so. Recall their key claim: gay couples deserve equal legal recognition.

That is an empty argument. To insist upon equality is to require that "like things be treated alike".

So X and Y should be treated equally for X and Y are alike. But we need to know in what respects X is like Y and whether these characteristics are morally valid before we can be confident that they merit equal treatment.

We must have a standard for deciding which characteristics count and which don't.

Is gay (partnership) marriage "like" conjugal marriage?

In some respects, yes: both may involve monogamous couples who have a deep commitment to each other. Continue reading

Sources

• Rex Ahdar in The Dominion Post
• Image: kidspot.co.nz

Rex Ahdar is a law professor at Otago University.

But Professor Rex Ahdar, from the Law Faculty of Otago University, says a flaw still remains in the most recent version of the Bill, despite the Select Committee's hope that the conscience clause that has been inserted would provide the necessary clarity that the Ministry of Justice and Crown Law advisers sought.

The Definition of Marriage (Amendment) Bill passed the second reading stage in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday 14 March. In this version of the Bill:

Section 29 amended (Licence authorizes but not obliges marriage celebrant to solemnize marriage)

In section 29, insert as subsection (2):

"Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation."

However Ahdar said the exemption is not worded widely enough.

"First, marriage celebrants who are independent and not members of any religious body or any approved organization are probably not protected. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, ministers of religion of existing religious bodies may not be protected either. How so? A religious minister whose denomination is divided on the issue of gay marriage may not be able to point to any authoritative ruling, precept, custom or teaching of his or her denomination that clearly states that only heterosexual marriage is right and acceptable."

Source

• Pundit.co.nz
• noliinsipientiuminiuriaspati.blogspot.co.nz