Mark Ron: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17531] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Once again I will address the issue of civil unions and the objections raised by some earlier speakers against the concept of a referendum. I have been struck by the total inconsistencies I have heard. I have voted in favour of the bill at every stage so far. I am a strong advocate of a referendum and plead with members—Government members in particular—to support the amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper. I shall tell members why. To deny a referendum just because people would campaign for and against civil unions as one speaker said is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd. To deny a referendum because the issue might incite hateful comments would be denying what is happening right now and be showing a lack of faith in the fair-mindedness of Kiwis. 
I shall give some examples. During the course of this debate someone outside the House said to me that de facto relationships are immoral. My reaction was that by inference civil unions must be immoral. I asked that person to tell that to my kids two of whom have lived in de facto relationships for many years. One of them had lived in a de facto relationship for 8 years before he and his wife decided to get married. I am able and most Kiwis are able to rationalise statements such as that and to judge people accordingly. I have received videos of Sodom and Gomorrah and some rather bizarre letters because none of those things have endeared me to the writers or senders of such material. I do not believe that fair-minded Kiwis faced with such an onslaught would treat a referendum any differently. 
Take for example the statements made by the Catholic Church. All my children and grandchildren are Catholic but I am not. However I am quite able so are other people to sift out the inconsistencies. Do members really think that all the Catholic women who use birth control methods will seriously take every word of the Catholic Church as gospel and live by it; that they would not vote for a referendum even though in their conscience they believe they should? Take for example the priest in Christchurch who has debarred a teacher from having a tagged appointment in a Catholic school because the teacher lives in sin. In this day and age that is nonsense and it is seen as nonsense. That priest in Rangiora is facing the scrutiny of parents who think that is a ridiculous attitude. His words on civil unions will be taken on balance by people who are able to sort through the issue. 
Some people have told me that marriage is an institution sanctified by God and that civil unions will undermine marriage. I balance that view with the knowledge that in countless weddings God is specifically ruled out yet by decree they apparently have the same sanctity as a marriage conducted in a church. I have seen registry office marriages. Supposedly advocates would say those marriages have the same status as a marriage sanctified in a religious ceremony in a church. We have seen marriages of convenience whereby Russian husbands and Asian wives have been brought to this country and we sit here and expect people to believe that those marriages have the same sanctity as a traditional marriage and do not undermine it. If that is the case it leaves a big argument as to what further damage the Civil Union Bill would do to the sanctity of marriage if those types of marriages are considered acceptable. 
Virtually every person I know and the vast majority of them are opposed to this bill say that the Destiny Church has turned them off. These words have been used to describe the Destiny Church: “A bunch of telemarketing evangelists a bunch of Jonestown acolytes zealots really scary people people you wouldn’t invite to dinner”. That is the sort of reaction the Destiny Church campaign has engendered against itself not against the bill and not against gay people. So my question to this Government and to all those people who I am starting to suspect have been whipped into line—Labour MPs who are voting against the bill but now are voting against a referendum—is what does this House have to fear by putting the question to the people? Why not ask them? We say that it is really simple: that issues like this should be put up at the same time as a general election. There should be a series of questions like: “Do you want to have same-sex marriages?”; “Do you want to have civil unions?”. They are very simple questions—yes or no—and the public is quite capable of answering them for us.