MARRIAGE LAWS

Southland Times, Issue 21854, 3 November 1932, Page 6

MARRIAGE LAWS

AMENDMENT BILL • SECOND READING REFUSED GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER MEASURE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, November 2. The Marriage Amendment Bill which was introduced by Mr H. G. R. Mason (L., Auckland Suburbs) was refused its second reading in the House of Representatives this afternoon after the Minister of Justice had agreed that it dealt with an important matter and had requested Mr Mason to leave the measure for consideration of the Government during the recess. The Bill proposed to provide that a man may marry his father’s deceased brother’s widow, his mother’s deceased brother’s widow, his deceased wife’s father’s sister, his deceased wife’s mother’s sister, his brother’s deceased son’s widow, his sister’s deceased son’s widow and that a woman may marry her father’s deceased sister’s husband, her mother’s deceased sister’s husband, her deceased husband’s father’s brother, her deceased husband’s mother’s brother, her brother’s deceased daughter’s husband, her sister’s deceased daughter’s husband. The Bill also proposed to provide for a woman to become an officiating minister for the purpose of performing the ceremony of marriage. Mr Mason said that the Bill was largely designed to bring New Zealand into line with English practice. It had recently been enacted that a man could marry his deceased wife’s sister and other cases had now arisen for which it was clear provision should be made.

The Minister of Justice said the matter was of great importance to the public generally and should be handled by the Government. He asked Mr Mason to drop the Bill and undertook that the Government would deal with it during the recess. Mr W. J. Jordan (L., Manukau) said there was real need for the Bill and urged the Government to take it up and put it through the House. Mr P. Fraser (L,, Wellington Central) said that he could not follow the text of the Bill and suggested it should be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. If anyone married the persons defined in the Bill he thought they should take the consequences and put up with it. It would serve them right. (Laughter.) On the second reading being put, the Hon. J. G. Cobbe raised his voice in opposition and the bells were rung for a division, but when the question was put again, supporters of the Bill remained silent and it was thrown out.