YahooNews August 12, 2011
Family First NZ is rejecting calls for more government funding for school breakfast clubs, warning that this will simply exacerbate the problem and ignore the underlying causes. “A child whose parents cannot even provide two pieces of toast in the morning or a bowl of porridge highlights a number of real concerns,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Going to the Chapel
Salient – Victoria University 15 Aug 2011
The legalisation of gay marriage in New York has given momentum to the international debate on same-sex unions. Following euphoric scenes in America with tears, mass engagements and public declarations of love, countries across the world are reassessing their recognition of same-sex partnerships. Is conferring the legal rights of marriage on civil unions the best way to achieve justice? Or is the only path to equality down the marriage aisle with lace, church, priest and cultural baggage in tow? With these dilemmas gaining publicity in an election year, Salient feature writer, Selina Powell, talks to your democratic representatives about the issue.
Family First has frequently expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. McCoskrie argues that including couples of the same sex within marriage would infringe on traditional definitions of marriage. He contends that, “Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone.”
McCoskrie does not think that prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates against the gay community. He also questions whether the ‘all love is equal’ campaign is a sound one in support of same-sex marriage. “Same-sex people cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of people. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man cannot marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish.” Hague emphatically rejects the view that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine marriage.
“On the contrary, I maintain that any state sanctioning of relationships that exclude some couples who love each other is cheapened by its embedded prejudice. Marriage is worth more and is more meaningful if all couples who love each other can marry.” The symbolism of denying same-sex couples the right to marry is important, according to Hague. “Making the ultimate form of state approval of a loving relationship unavailable to same sex couples signals very powerfully that we remain second class citizens, with our relationships not as valuable as those of our heterosexual fellow citizens.”