THE MARRIAGE BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18049, 24 September 1920, Page 5

THE MARRIAGE BILL

MOTION IN THE UPPER HOUSE.

ATTEMPT TO KILL TUP, MEASURE.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, September 23. When tho Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) was to-day introduced in the Council by the Hon. ,T. MacGrcgor, and was read a first time, the Hon. W. .T. Geddis moved to kill the Bill at the out-set of its carecr. Tho measure provides >that the Registrargeneral is. not to enter on the list of officiating ministers (a) the name of any bishop, priest, or minister of the Kom.ui Catholic Church so long a.s the No Temere Decree, or chapter 1 of the' Decree of tho Council of 1 rent (referred to in No Temoro Dccrce) is in force in Now_ Zealand, (b) Tho namo o- an Y bishop, priest, or minister of any church. which •by any articles of religion, confession of faith, creed, or catcchism denies or questions, either directly or bv implication, tho validity in any sense, of marriages solemnised iji accordance with tho provisions of tho Marriage Act. It was moved that the second reading should be taken a week later. Mr Geddis moved an amendment—"That the second reading bo made an order of tho m if , f k'-y." _ "It seems to me," he said, that tho spirit of religious intolerance and bigotry is abroad, and is extending its influence over the Legislature of this country. It is tho direct result of a campaign of sectarian hatred, that has been m progress in New Zoaland for some time, and that- has had very mischievous results in tho social, as well as the political, life of t-i , country. ' It, might bo suggested, Mr Leddis proceeded, that he should allow the Jill! to go to its second- reading. and should state his objections then, but"he felt that thero wore graver issues before tfhe country than onest.ions of difference in religious belief. It was no part of the duty of tho to interfere in tho religious teaching or beliefs of (he people. His feeling was .that the Bill was directed against one particular denomination. The-ro'had been legislation on somewhat similar lines preand it hod been urged that no distinction was being made between one religion and another. In the nres"nt case there certainly was such a distinction. During Mr Geddis's speech Councillors interjected fli.it, they did not know what was in j;he Bill. Mr Geddis replied that the press had already stated the effect, of the measure. the Hon. P. J. Nerhc-rny seconded the amendment. ~T il£ n °n O. Samuel said ho hoped Mr Alaciireeor would be given an opportunity of explaining the Bi'l before any move was made against it Tim, Council should not prejudice tjie Bill. • P 0f V'' s , paid that if mertbers were lnsufiicjcntlv informed of what was contemp -atcd by the Bill he was prepared to withdraw the amendment, though ho would certainly uso his opposition when the second reading was moved. The amendment was withdrawn, and tho motion was cnrricd.