Copeland Gordon: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17483] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 As is well known this bill is aimed at creating a new institution called a civil union for heterosexual couples. We can see that in clause 4A(1) for example. When I first realised that civil unions were to include heterosexual couples—that is the coming together of a woman and a man—I thought it was merely a sophistry to make the bill halfway decent. I thought that the real goal was same-sex marriage and that the sole aim of the inclusion of heterosexuals was to make that agenda politically palatable. That was until I read the following statement from Prime Minister Helen Clark. I will read it to ensure that I quote it correctly: “Marriage has a lot of inappropriate connotations. It carries associations with religion belief etc. My personal interest is in a secular society and I think a civil union bill is very important for heterosexual couples as well. I think it will be surprising how many people opt for that. Personally if civil union had been in place when I was much younger I certainly would have chosen that option.” 
When I read those words I was simply dumbfounded. They must surely be the most hostile words to the institution of marriage ever spoken by any leader of any country at any time in history. They stand in stark contrast to the recent action taken by the Australian Government to make it clear that a marriage comprises a union between only one woman and one man in confirmation of what the word “marriage” has meant from the beginning of human history. 
Today happens to be the 41st anniversary of my marriage to Anne. I believe in marriage whether secular or religious whether Jewish Christian Hindu Islamic Seik or Buddhist or whether it be the first second or third marriage. There is nothing like it. It is unique. It is irreplaceable. With the Greeks I believe it is the foundation of a society and of a nation. It represents God’s highest and best and His beautiful loving plan for both the joy of the spouses and for the multiplication of the human race. As an institution it cannot be bettered although through education it can be prepared for enriched nurtured and improved with great benefit to the spouses and to their children and to the whole of society. In fact society is no more than the sum total of its relationships. Marriage is a vocation founded on the love and commitment of one woman and one man. It can be built up or dumbed down by the State. It is my conviction that the Government can do so much more for marriage and the family and that was my primary motivation for coming into Parliament in the first place. Of course not all are called to marriage and not all marriages are successful. But like anything else in life the ingredients for resilience can be taught and learnt. 
So what does this bill do for marriage? Does it build it up or does it endeavour to pull it down? Is there any basis or evidence to suggest that a name change to civil union and secularisation will in any way be helpful to our country? I think not; nor do New Zealanders. We are told that there are about 150000 de facto couples in this country. Yet I was able to issue a press release on Monday of this week to say that in spite of the more than probably 1200 communications I have received about this bill I had not one single heterosexual couple tell me to vote for this bill because they intend to enter into a civil union—not a single one. 
In response to my press release I have now had one heterosexual couple contact me to say that they intend to enter into a civil union if this bill is passed and as far as I am concerned and as far as I know there is only one such couple in the whole country. So why on earth is the Government taking up the time of Parliament with this ridiculous idea to try to change the name of a rose—the name of something beautiful that has stood the test of time from the beginning of human history—and give it a new name on the basis that the existing institution is somehow inappropriate? That was the word I seem to remember Bill Clinton used in terms of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Are we saying that that is the image of marriage that exists? Let us dump this bill.