M.P.’s Argue Bill On Homosexual Law Reform (Press, 8 November 1985)

On 8 November 1985, a New Zealand cabinet minister and former Methodist minister, Mr Marshall, addressed the Parliament during the ongoing debate over the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. He asserted that supporting the bill did not contradict Christian teachings, expressing frustration over individuals who misinterpret scripture to oppose the legislation. Mr Marshall highlighted that the debate often focused excessively on sexual activity instead of the importance of accepting individuals for who they are. He encouraged Parliament members to reconsider their stance, stressing that voting in favour of the bill was not against the Christian gospel or church beliefs. As public interest grew, over 160 people filled the galleries to witness the debate, while a small group of Catholics prayed outside Parliament, seeking divine guidance to influence Parliamentarians against the bill. Within the context of his education portfolio, Mr Marshall addressed suggestions that homosexual teachers could sway students' attitudes through a new health education syllabus. He clarified that the syllabus did not promote discussions on sexual preferences. However, several members, including Mr Roger Maxwell, Mr Denis Marshall, and Mr Neil Austin, voiced their opposition to the bill. Mr Maxwell discussed the enlightenment the debate offered him but did not feel compelled to support the bill. Mr Marshall argued that while the bill poorly legalised homosexual relations among consenting males aged 16 and older, he recognised the need to decriminalise such relations for adults over 20, given society's general disapproval of homosexuality. Mr Austin, aligning with this sentiment, insisted that his moral standards would not be compromised by external pressures regarding the bill. Mr Paul East also acknowledged the potential for decriminalising homosexuality but harboured reservations about the bill’s age of consent and provisions preventing discrimination against homosexuals, stating society was not ready for such changes. The debate unfolded with humour as Mr Norman Jones announced he would propose an amendment delaying the bill’s second reading for 12 months. His announcement was met with laughter and banter from the galleries, showcasing the contentious yet engaging atmosphere of the discussion. In closing his remarks, Mr Jones emphatically stated that the bill would not pass in its current form, offering a wager regarding its eventual fate, which only heightened the rhetoric surrounding the legislation. Amidst a mix of earnest convictions and light-hearted exchanges, the debate around the Homosexual Law Reform Bill continued to reflect a society grappling with significant moral and legal transformations.

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