Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 7 August 1985)

In August 1985, the discussion surrounding proposed legislation on homosexual law reform in New Zealand sparked a robust exchange of letters in the media. Bruce Morrison posed critical questions regarding the proposals by Philip Ney, particularly concerning what provisions would be made for individuals "wishing to change" their sexual orientation and how the proposed bill might restrict rather than promote freedom of choice. He suggested that an increase in the homosexual population in cities like New York could be attributed to the migration of individuals from states where their sexual orientation was criminalised to locations where it is more accepted, such as New York and San Francisco. Morrison argued that if the law were passed in New Zealand, it would encourage more individuals to openly express their homosexuality, fostering a climate of acceptance and understanding among heterosexuals. Arthur Wells, responding to Ney, challenged him to define what he meant by a "more acceptable" law regarding homosexuality, asserting that any such proposal could result in further oppression. Wells expressed strong support for the homosexual community, stating that a new Christchurch organisation named HUG (Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays) had emerged to advocate for homosexual rights and to foster community acceptance. He noted that many supporters were motivated by personal relationships with homosexuals, which had illuminated the absurdities of current laws and societal fears surrounding homosexuality. Wells highlighted the importance of authentic sexual choices and a supportive, accepting environment. K. L. Crump from the Gay Task Force also addressed Ney's arguments, asserting that discrimination against homosexuals remains a stark contrast to the privileges granted to heterosexuals, thus underscoring the need for legal equality. Crump expressed concern that Ney's views reflect a broader reluctance to embrace the principles of liberty and equality, both of which should be fundamental to a democratic society. Crump maintained that the proposed bill represented what the homosexual community deemed acceptable and necessary for achieving legal and social equality. Overall, these discussions highlighted a critical moment in New Zealand’s evolving attitudes towards homosexuality and the push for legal reforms that would decriminalise and legitimise homosexual relationships, ultimately fostering greater societal acceptance. The letters reflect a deepening debate about individual rights, societal norms, and the role of law in shaping personal lives and identities.

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