Petition ‘a Victory For Homosexual Law Reform’ (Press, 19 September 1985)

On 19 September 1985, the Gay Task Force in New Zealand expressed disappointment regarding the petition aimed at opposing homosexual law reform, which they viewed as a setback for its organisers. Spokesman Bill Logan reported that the outcome of the petition reaffirmed support for reform within the country. He cited polling data indicating that a significant majority of New Zealanders were in favour of changing the laws regarding homosexuality. Logan emphasised that while the right to sign the petition was open to all, the fact that it garnered support from only a quarter of the population pointed to its limited impact. The petition faced allegations of irregularities, with concerns raised about the legitimacy of some signatures. Logan stated there were reports of minor children, including six-year-olds, signing the petition, as well as claims of multiple signatures by individuals and potential coercion of workers by their employers. He argued that the matter at hand was not about the number of signatures but about the ethical principle of ensuring that lesbians and gay men enjoyed the same civil liberties as others. A group known as Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays (H.U.G.) mocked the petition's validity, particularly pointing out an improbable claim that 97 per cent of voters in the Hamilton East electorate had signed. They compared this scenario to electoral results in Southeast Asia, suggesting that it was unlikely that such a high percentage of voters, including a significant number of homosexuals, would oppose the law reform vigorously enough to influence their voting behaviour based on this single issue. In response, one of the petition's organisers, Graeme Lee, dismissed the assertions of irregularities, stating that the petition underwent thorough scrutiny and the most rigorous control measures of any petition in New Zealand's history. He acknowledged the possibility that some young signatures emerged, but refuted claims of young children participating, suggesting that any illegitimate signatures of that nature were promptly eliminated during the verification process. He also addressed concerns about individuals with intellectual disabilities, affirming that similar checks were in place to rule out those signatures.

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