Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17396] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The fight over the Civil Union Bill is about more than who can hitch up with whom. It is about who we are as a nation. Are we a Christian nation or are we a pluralist State? Should law be based on morality or on rationality? Should the legislature respect equality and human rights or should it advantage some and disadvantage others? Submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee were civil and respectful. However some of the opposition to the bill outside the parliamentary process has been venomous and nasty. Civil union supporters have been criticised for calling those opponents homophobic. I think that misses the point because this issue is not about fear of homos as much as it is about fear of losing control. On the face of it why would it upset anyone that two men or two women who love each other can make a public commitment and have that commitment recognised in law? Whom does that diminish? If being privileged above others is what makes a relationship valuable then it will suffer from the presence of anything closely resembling it. But if its value is derived from its spiritual authority the love it embodies and the virtue of its form then its value remains unaffected by the proximity of others. It is that genuine belief in the virtues of marriage that distinguishes the Christians who advocate for civil unions from the predominantly Christian opposition to them. 
The Civil Union Bill does not devalue marriage. It is not gay people who love each other who devalue marriage but such things as radio shows and reality television—which Moana Mackey talked about—that offer a bride as a prize. Do opponents of the bill not secretly believe that heterosexual marriage is intrinsically advantageous and that the presence of alternatives will make it less desirable? Do they think that good straight kids will start entering gay unions because the law states that they can? Do they think that being gay is somehow more interesting? Or is it that the opponents see their dominance of our social and political forms slipping away from them? The increasing plurality of our society is scary for those who have always paddled in the mainstream. They have not yet understood that there no longer is a mainstream. We have become a braided river. I do not mean that unkindly. I am a man who has lived outside the mainstream for most of my life. A number of United Future MPs think that I should be disqualified from being an MP because of that and they typify the view that I am talking about. 
 I have an unshakeable faith that is different from that of the United Future MPs which I am forbidden by law to fully practise. It would be wrong for me to demand that everyone else be bound by Rastafarian law but I am justified in demanding my own right to be a Rasta and that is the proper relationship between faith and the State. The State should be a protector not a persecutor of religion but it is not the State’s role to advantage one faith over another or religion over any other philosophy. The job of legislators is not to privilege any particular cultural practice but to protect human rights and cultural and ecological integrity. That does not include entrenching discrimination in the law. The law should support committed long-term relationships because they promote health strong communities and greater happiness. There is no rational basis for excluding people from that because they are gay. Even if it is true as some assert that gay and de facto relationships are less stable than other relationships why would we not want to provide an opportunity for those people to formally and publicly commit to each other and have that commitment taken seriously by the law? 
As it stands the law states that same-sex people can have casual sex but that they may not have a long-term relationship recognised. I simply do not understand why some people see a moral imperative in maintaining that status quo. But then I have never really understood why oppressing other people is seen as a Christian value by some people. The Bible does talk about homosexuality. It is a little unclear in places whether the problem is with regard to homosexuality per se or promiscuity but it is condemned in some places a few times. I have not counted how many times exactly but I think it is about as many times as usury is condemned—the practice of lending money at interest. Usury is a genuinely iniquitous practice and the avoidance of usury is one of the unique features of the Muslim banking system. I ask members to consider the percentage of the average person’s income spent on servicing the interest on debt. There is the interest on one’s mortgage—or on one’s landlord’s mortgage if one pays rent—the interest on bank loans to the businesses where people shop and the interest on credit and on student loans but I have yet to see a member of Parliament fast to end the practice of usury. As far as I can see homosexuality is of insignificant concern to the biblical prophets and to the Christ when compared with the overwhelming condemnation of economic injustice and oppression of the poor. Yet although it would be a little unfair to say that among Christians opposition to the Civil Union Bill is inversely proportional to a concern for social justice there does seem to be a rough fit. 
Christianity was debased when it became the State religion of Rome and it continues to debase itself when it tries to align its interests with those of the State. This is a pluralist society with a democratic and secular Parliament and it is vital that we uphold that. In that context it was a dangerous and an unwise decision by the Catholic bishops to attempt to direct Catholics on how to vote as a consequence of this bill. If the Catholic Church wants to return to its past of wielding direct political power it will find modern society considerably less malleable. If the Catholic Church wants to intervene in the political process it may tempt politicians to interfere in the affairs of the Church. 
I would like to finish by thanking the advisers to the select committee for their very good work and by thanking Tim Barnett for his excellent chairing. Although his view on the bill has always been clear he has made sure that all sides had a genuinely fair go and that all submitters were treated with respect. I apologise to Mr Franks for contrasting that with the chairing of the committee by the deputy chair but I make that point only because of Mr Franks’ public and unjustified criticism of Mr Barnett and the select committee. Let us ensure that Aotearoa is a land that respects and values all its people. Let us make sure we pass this bill.