Heterosexual Support For Reform Bill (Press, 20 April 1985)

On 20 April 1985, the Homosexual Law Reform Society highlighted widespread support for the legalisation of homosexuality, stating that many "knowledgeable and respectable" heterosexuals backed the cause. Professor Jim Robb, the society's president, condemned Members of Parliament Norman Jones and Graeme Lee for their campaign against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, asserting that they were misusing the term "homosexual" as a disparaging label aimed at discrediting supporters of the legislation. Professor Robb pointed out that at multiple meetings, Mr. Jones specifically claimed that only lesbians and gay men supported the bill. However, he noted that a list of the society's 17 vice-presidents included a diverse group of respected individuals, such as church ministers, medical professionals, and academics, who had advocated for law reform for over 18 years. Among the notable figures on the list were Father Felix Donnelly, former Cabinet Minister Dr. Martyn Finlay, Director of Mental Health Dr. Basil James, and educationist Mr. Jack Shallcrass. Robb expressed particular frustration at the tactics employed by some opponents, particularly Mr. Lee, who he felt was misusing biblical references to fortify his anti-reform stance. In support of their position, the Gay Taskforce also spoke out, suggesting that some remarks from critics of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill would violate existing laws if they were directed at racial groups such as Polynesians. A spokesperson for the Taskforce, Bill Logan, noted that the Race Relations Act imposes penalties of up to three months in jail for individuals convicted of publicly insulting or inciting hatred against racial communities, implying that similar protections should extend to sexual orientation. Overall, the event highlighted ongoing debates and tensions surrounding the legal recognition of homosexuality, emphasising a push for more inclusive and fair treatment under the law, while also pointing out the hypocrisy and bias present in the arguments of some lawmakers against the reform.

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