Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17391] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Civil Union Bill as another member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We heard a large number of submissions and I thank all the submitters for the way they engaged with the members of the select committee; I know that Labour members of the select committee have received a number of emails from submitters mostly opposed to the bill thanking us for our engagement with them at the select committee. 
This bill is not about marriage. Submitters and members of the committee opposed to this bill were quite clear about what they believed the role and properties of marriage to be. None of them are found in the Marriage Act. The Marriage Act says nothing about the nurturing and raising of children nothing about being a cornerstone of society nothing about exclusivity and monogamy—just as well—nothing about love and nothing about religion. All these are parts of the culture of marriage developed over centuries. Marriage is so much more than the sterile Marriage Act which does not reflect the modern reality of marriage. So the Civil Union Bill basing its administrative procedures on the Marriage Act hardly makes it marriage. 
Marriage does not have the monopoly on exclusivity and stability. Many de facto relationships are more exclusive and stable than some marriages. We should be supporting strong stable relationships not deciding which strong stable relationships we like and which ones we do not like. All relationships are not equal but it is simplistic and misleading to say “marriage good de facto bad”. It depends entirely on the individuals in that relationship. 
This bill will not have a detrimental effect on marriage. It will be used by those who cannot and those who will not marry now. We heard from many in the latter category through oral and written submissions. Denmark has had such legislation since 1989 and far from seeing a disintegration of marriage its rates have continued to rise unabated and are now the highest they have been since the early 1970s. In fact all across Scandinavia where such laws are common trends in marriage cohabitation single parents and divorce have been unaffected by the introduction of alternative relationship recognition laws. 
Those opposed to this bill claim allowing gay people access to a parallel structure will bring marriage into disrepute. Yet in reality we are not at all choosy about whom we allow to marry. They do not even have to know each other. Let us talk about that for a while. I did a search on some websites: the Maxim Institute the Destiny New Zealand political party the Society for Promotion of Community Standards and the United Future websites. 
 How many press releases did I find criticising a radio station competition wedding of two people who did not even know each other? None! How many press releases did I find that criticised the marriage of Scott Watson a convicted murderer whilst in prison? None! Apparently it is only when gay people want to do it that all of a sudden there is that grave concern for the reputation of marriage even where the relationships are as loving and as committed as the best heterosexual unions out there. How would members of this House feel if they were told a murderer was more deserving of relationship rights than they were? 
In numerical terms heterosexual couples stand to benefit the most from this bill but the focus of the committee was squarely on gay people. Throughout history gay people have been blamed for everything from child abuse to an email I got today blaming them for global warming. It is surreal that in this day and age this Parliament still feels the need to have its proverbial witch to burn at the stake although it is a lot easier than having to face up to some of the real issues facing New Zealand families in New Zealand society. 
I spent months researching many of the issues. Opponents of the bill claim that gay people are not capable of long-term relationships because somehow they are just different to us monogamous pure chaste heterosexuals. Putting aside the obvious conflict that to assume they are wired differently when it comes to monogamy seems a concession that homosexuality is biological that is so ridiculous it is almost funny. I do not know how many long-term committed couples had to appear before our committee before opponents who claim that they are the exception to the rule realised that their rule is wrong. They rely on studies from the 1970s with samples collected in gay pick-up bars as proof that gays will only bring disrepute to a monogamous institution. Those of us who have gay friends and family many of whom are in long-term relationships know that this is not only completely untrue but completely offensive. 
Some members of this House say that they do not want to promote gay parenting. Let us put this in perspective. Most gay couples do not have children. American census statistics put the rate at about two per 1000. Those who do have kids or want kids will not stop if this bill does not pass. Research is clear that children do do better in two-parent families but whether that two-parent family is heterosexual or homosexual does not matter. Members should look at the research. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a 10-minute call.