Nonsense from Sensible Sentencing Trust Spokesperson

By Michael Edmonds 20/01/2013

It was reported in the Sunday Star Times today that Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson, Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that a change in the law allowing same sex marriage will “ultimately have detremental (sic) effect on crime at all levels“.

I really had thought I had seen all the stupid arguments against same sex marriage, but this one is new, and has me completely flummoxed.

How could allowing same sex marriage affect crime?

I can’t think of any rational answer to this claim.

Or is it that Mr McVicar, like many other opponents of same sex marriage, realises that there is no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage so is just muddying the water with this unsubstantiated (and quite absurd) claim?

Here is an article on Mr McVicar’s comments in the Otago Daily Times. The tweets at the end of the article are quite amusing.

0 Responses to “Nonsense from Sensible Sentencing Trust Spokesperson”

  • I saw that on earlier today. I couldn’t read the whole article because I was already too angry.

    I would not have thought anyone could be considered a criminal in this country without having committed a crime. Where does he draw the line?

    What he says, I would consider hate speech, thus he should not be entitled to make this view public. I will no longer be able to take anything he says seriously.

    • I guess the one good thing about his comments is the majority of people have responded by going “what the hell?”

  • > Or is it that Mr McVicar, like many other opponents of same sex marriage, realises that there is no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage so is just muddying the water with this unsubstantiated (and quite absurd) claim?

    I think that you’ve got the reason right there.

  • That’s exactly what I did. But I am most uncomfortable with the association of his name with the “sensible sentencing trust” as if there is some implication of sentencing at all (other than the sentencing of some people to be second class citizens by views such as this).

    • One news article said that he would like to see evidence that same sex marriage will not adversely affect children so I sent him a very polite email with a report by the Australian Psychological Association which demonstrates just that. If anyone is interested it can be found on the Greens website (and once I get to a real computer instead of my iPad I’ll attach a link)

  • I read in the NZ Herald version that his argument was, quote: “If you look at the court stats, most of the crime that has been committed has been committed by fatherless kids.” But when asked about kids who end up having two dads in a gay marriage situation, he says it would still be a problem because they’d have no Mum. Whaaat? I’m not sure this guy knows the meaning of logic… and definitely not evidence.

    As for his motivation? He comments: “That’s where it’s heading – this is just another step in that politically correct journey that we’ve been on as a country.” So, he just doesn’t like it. Go figure.

  • Claire,
    It is the standard rhetoric of someone who can’t rationally justify his position.

    First, it is about “fatherless kids” but when it is pointed out that children of a gay couple have two fathers, then it becomes “having no mother” (and I bet with lesbian couples it is about having “no father”) This of course ignores the fact that all the research shows that the best results for children come from those who are raised by someone (parent/parents/caregiver(s)) who love them and provides for them.
    A link to the Australian Psychological Society’s report on same sex couples raising children can be found here:

  • He is at least consistent. The vast majority of his ramblings on law and justice are unsupported by evidence as well.

  • “McVicar did not respond to requests for comment.”

    Busy suntanning his neck I suspect.

    • And now Family First have joined in with more irrational arguments and a petition from 72,000 people. I’m assuming these are genuine signatures and don’t include the forgeries and underage signees like the petitions used by those opposing the homosexual law reform. 72,000 isn’t particularly impressive.
      Apparently they raised the ire of one of the committee members by implying this bill would open the door to incest. Sigh, will the idiocy never end.
      It was also suggested in a news report that they had suggested that it was unnatural. If they are talking about marriage then I guess they are right, I don’t know of any higher mammals which engage in marriage, thought there are certainly quite a few which have members who have homosexual relationships.
      I used to think I had heard all the stupid arguments, but now I dread seeing what they will come up with the bill submissions underway.

  • I love the bit where Bob M makes a statement ot the effect that gay is a choice and we shouldn’t write law to support choices he doesn’t agree with.

    My response would be that religion is likewise (actually, moreso) a choice, and I completely agree – all legislation supporting the un-natural choice of religious belief (other animals don’t do it…) should be rescinded.

  • As a dyke of 35 years and a co-victim of homicide I wonder if Garth ever considered that imaking his comments he was effectively re-victimising those of us (homosexuals) who live with the aftermath of homicide or other serious crimes. He states he is there for those of us who experience horrendous crime – apparently not. Some in SSt are saying he is a ‘good man’ but is not a good man, people who are openly homophobic and racist (let us not forget his support of Bruce Emery in stabbing Pihema Cameron) are not good people and do not make good policy as these policies are based on their ignorance and bigotry.

    • Ky,
      I’m sorry to hear you have been a co-victim of homicide.
      I suspect Mr McVicar is not able to see beyond his narrow view of what he believes the world should be like, and has not thought how his views affect those in same sex relationships, or as you point out, those who belong to racial groups other than his own.