Deferment Sought (Press, 31 October 1968)

On 30 October 1968, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee in Wellington discussed a petition advocating the repeal of legislation criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males in private. The Thames Church of Christ Life and Advent requested a month’s delay in the committee’s decision to allow for further public discussion and the organisation of meetings to adequately present their opposition to the petition. Pastor C. C. Warner articulated several concerns regarding the proposal, arguing that it was too drastic, not in the public interest, and viewed homosexuality as an unnatural act warranting psychiatric intervention rather than legalisation. He emphasised that homosexuality was a moral sin condemned by scripture and a contributor to the decline of civilisations. In contrast, Rev. R. J. Hendry, representing the Homosexual Law Reform Society and speaking for Christian youth, supported the petition. He contended that homosexuals should be accepted and encouraged to live responsibly within their sexuality, emphasising that beneath any perceived aberration lay a human being full of potential. Hendry argued for compassion and understanding rather than judgment, stating that the law should not be based solely on societal disgust and citing a survey of Christian individuals which suggested a shift towards acceptance instead of condemnation of homosexuality. The Catholic Church’s social services committee, represented by Rev. P. J. Cullinane, offered cautious support for the proposed law amendment, provided that sufficient protections against exploitation were included. Cullinane suggested that law reform should not merely remove the criminality of homosexual acts but should also engage positively with the homosexual community, encouraging treatment. He raised concerns regarding the age of consent and the potential risks associated with legalising venues for homosexual activities, asserting that the law’s necessity for societal protection needed careful examination. The discussion was further informed by telegrams received by the committee, such as one endorsing the petition from an Auckland branch of the Homosexual Law Reform Society and another opposing it from a Thames couple. Additionally, submissions from Christchurch clinical psychologist Mr. V. J. Wilson expressed similar opposition, framing the criminalisation of homosexuality as necessary protection against what he described as a harmful lifestyle. Overall, the debate highlighted the deep divisions within the community regarding homosexuality, balancing moral considerations against calls for legal reform and societal acceptance, as the committee deliberated the implications of their decision on both public morality and the rights of individuals.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand