McBLOG: National no longer a ‘broad church’?

During the marriage redefinition debate in 2013, we warned that If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of ‘love is love’, consenting adults and human rights would then open the door for those arguing for polygamous & group marriage and adult consensual incest – irrespective of our moral opposition. A new candidate for National expressed those very concerns during the earlier civil unions debate in 2003. And for that he’s been rebuked by the National party leader. Other MPs have been rebuked for their views on abortion and climate alarmism. It appears that National is no longer the ‘broad church’ it claims to be – either lock in step with the woke view or else.

Full Commentary…

During the marriage definition debate in 2013, Our basic argument was simply this. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of love and human rights would then open the door for those arguing for polygamous and group marriage.  

A new candidate for National expressed those very views during a similar debate in 2003 during the civil unions debate. And for that he’s been rebuked by the national party leader. National is no longer the broad church it claims to be – either lock in step with the woke view or else

Here’s the inconvenient truth. The same arguments used to justify same-sex marriages can be used to justify polygamy, adult consensual incest, group marriage, and so on. Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, any and all types of sexual activity become permissible. Love is love. In fact, isn’t 3 people in a marriage even more love – if that’s all marriage is about.

But it’s illegal Bob. They may be illegal now, but it wasn’t that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also.

But we all knew that claims about it’s just civil unions and removing discrimination were just a smokescreen.

Listen to these so-called bigoted views that would get you chucked out of National

Biden Marriage 2008

Obama Marriage 2008

Biden Marriage 2006

Remember the political u-turns in NZ.

The reason I raise this is that National’s candidate for Maungakiekie, Greg Fleming, is accused by the media of comparing civil unions to polygamy and incest during the civil unions debate. 

We’ll check what was actually said – but immediately Christopher Luxon sang the media tune (as they were bombarding questions at him) and rebuked Fleming. And it’s not the first time that a National MP or candidate has had to lockstep with the party view.

Remember the rebuke of Maureen Pugh for daring to question climate alarmism

Remember the rebuke of Simon O’Connor for daring to suggest the unborn child gaining rights in the US was a good thing

Here’s the media report (and video of Luxon’s response) – 

At the time of these comments, Fleming was the managing director of the Maxim Institute. He penned a press release at the time calling into question the Government’s motives behind introducing the Civil Unions Bill. The Civil Unions Act was passed in 2004 – it preceded our same sex marriage laws. 

Yes it did! And we all knew that.

So let’s look at the media release

Civil Unions a feel good deception

Thursday, 24 June 2004, 11:27 am

Press Release: Maxim Institute

Introduction of the Civil Union Bill is a dubious feel good measure says Greg Fleming, Maxim Institute, Managing Director.

The explanatory note to the Bill states that it will address the situation in which same-sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationship.

“We must be clear that the sole purpose of this Bill is to provide for same-sex marriage in all but name. Government propaganda suggesting Civil Unions are an alternative for defacto couples is just a farce. “

“Marriage has preferred status and rights in law because of its public benefits…  

The argument of removing discrimination is flawed and deceptive… 

the law rightly differentiates between different relationships…

“If the government was really interested in removing discrimination then it should amend the Marriage Act. Either this is just a pragmatic and temporary compromise or it doesn’t believe its own spin.”

why is the government allowing discrimination to continue by refusing to legally recognise other relationship forms such as the union of siblings or more than two people?


And from that fair question, you get this grand headline. Note it’s just the word “incest”> Negative connation which completely ignores the actual and valid argument. 

Firstly he’s right. Civil unions was just a smokescreen. 

In 2020 there were just 15 same-sex civil unions and in 2021 just 12.

Why? Because it was all about same-sex marriage.

They could have used another name – but they wanted marriage.

Marriage equality – it’s all about love. love is love. Now nobody can deny that there aren’t pushes around the world for group marriage and polygamy which is already present in some societies and religions.

Even here in NZ, In 2017, the Ministry of Social Development said a second “wife” in a polygamous marriage may be entitled to a sole-parent benefit. 

In 2014, it was revealed that Auckland ratepayers were subsidising an event promoting polyamory for those who want to ‘relate to more than one partner’ and non-monogamous marriages. 

Well it’s just getting wackier – as we’ve seen in NZ media:

Marrying fictional characters
Marrying yourself.

Who needs a groom to get married? ‘Sologamy’ – self-marriage – may just be the kind of self-celebration we need.

And of course there are people who have married rocks and married bridges. 

But what about the consensual adult incest. Could there be a human rights love is love argument for that?

Of course. And it’s already happening. 

In the NY Post 2021, Consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child. Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countries, said he supports the legal push in Manhattan Federal Court and that such behavior between consenting adults “should not be criminalized.” He and other advocates have launched about 130 petitions, mostly on, seeking to change incest laws around the world. Most have received little support.

In 2010, the LA Times had this heading – “ABC News asks if incest between consenting adults is OK on Facebook.” 

They were asking the question because of this story – “Columbia University Professor Accused of Incest With Daughter – Teacher says sex was consensual as Swiss consider lifting ban against adults.”

Closer to home, remember this story in 2014?

Act Leader Jamie Whyte is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be “intellectually corrupt” of him not to be honest when asked such questions.

According to, in the following countries, incest is legal: Belgium, China, France (although there were moves last year to ban it), Japan, Latvia, Portugal, Russia (marriage prohibited), South Korea, Turkey (marriage prohibited). Incest is legal for adults only in Argentina, Israel (over 21), Ivory Coast, the Netherlands (marriage prohibited), the Philippines (marriage prohibited), and Spain. Incest is legal in Brazil if over 14 and in Thailand if over 15; however, most marriages in these countries are disallowed or prohibited. Incest is legal in Italy unless it provokes public scandal. In some countries, incest is legal for adults and legal for minors, but illegal for adults and minors together. These countries include Lithuania, Serbia, and Slovenia.

So Fleming was right

And he still is right.

But this analysis must be shut down in the national party. 

It is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. The marriage law that we currently have is still discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry but neither can a lot of other people. A 5-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other – yet. A married man can’t marry another person. Two old aunties living together cannot marry. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless.

In the 2013 debate, we said in our pamphlet that was very popular throughout the country

If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it beong redefined again? Allowing only same sex marriage on the basis of love and commitment would then open the door for polygamous, polyamory (group) and consensual adult incest-type marriages. Why would discrimination against these loving adults be ok? They may be illegal now, but it wasn’t that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also

I note that we warned that banning mother father husband wife would be next on the agenda.

Wow – sadly, our prediction has been proved true.

In fact, saying that only women can be mothers and get pregnant can now get you banned on twitter and cancelled by the media. 

If you think this whole debate, the attack on Greg Fleming, the capitulation by Christopher Luxon on marriage, and abortion, and gender identity ideology is just about the right for same sex couples to get married because love is love – think again. You may be asleep. 

Now we have drag queens targeting children with sexualised performances, and children being told they can change their sex with chemicals, castration and preferred pronouns – and that they have more than 200 sexualities to choose from.

The weakening and redefining of marriage was just the start.

But if you hold that view in National, you are persona non-grata.

The real issue is – where do social conservatives vote in order to have a voice in Parliament? The options are fast disappearing – and that should concern us all. 

Scroll to Top