Collins Judith: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13942] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Civil Union Bill—not because of any sort of homophobic views not because I do not recognise the relationship that Mr Carter and his spouse have and not because I do not wish to see gay marriage but because I believe that the bill as presented to us today is a travesty of the truth. We have been told by supporters of the bill that it is not about creating marriage but everything in it is about creating a parallel form of marriage. Civil unions will be registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act—not the “Births Deaths Marriages and Civil Unions Act”. It is marriage by another name. People who want to join in a civil union will have to get a licence from the Births Deaths and Marriages registry. 
We have been told that it will not be a marriage because it does not use the word “marriage”. If the proponents of the bill think marriage is simply a word then they do not know a thing about marriage. The previous speaker said that marriage is about love. It is actually about a lot more than love; it is about commitment. That commitment goes through years and years even stages when couples do not love each other very much at all but they are there because of a commitment. What often happens is that they come back to loving each other because of that commitment. 
We have been told that civil union will not be a religious ceremony yet in the last few days we have seen that there are churches that will be quite happy to have civil unions celebrated within them. We have been told that marriage has a religious connotation. My husband and I were married in a non-religious civil service almost 20 years ago. My parents were married in a non-religious civil service in 1941 and the marriage dissolved only on the death of my father 52 years later. Marriage is not a religious ceremony or a religious institution; in this country it is a civil institution and we are quite happy for people who wish to have that civil institution recognised in a church to do so. Many religious organisations will help them do that in places other than churches. 
The argument against marriage or for civil union on the basis of religion is fallacious—in fact it is downright wrong. The statement the Green member made about marriage being a Christian institution is quite wrong and culturally insensitive in the extreme—which is surprising for the Greens. I am sure that people of the Muslim persuasion would be shocked to hear that their marriages are simply Christian relationships. 
Who would we be passing the Civil Union Bill for? I had a look at the census statistics for 2001 because I know it is not for heterosexual couples. That is one of the things I want to say about the bill—it is the “Gay Marriage Bill” and it is about time we acknowledged that. I personally am not particularly opposed to or for gay marriage. I am happy to debate it and I am happy to do so from a position of honesty that that is what we are talking about. I have said to the proposers of the bill that if they want to talk about gay marriage I am happy to talk to them about it and happy to listen but the civil union nonsense that is being dreamed up as some sort of de facto marriage for gay couples is wrong. 
If this bill is passed in its current form we will be back in the House in 2 or 3 years’ time looking at the “Gay Marriage Bill” because this bill is a sop to gay couples in which they are being told that they can have second best. That is not good enough. Either people are entitled to look at themselves as married and to get married or they are not—not some halfway house which in the meantime demeans marriage for those people who do believe in it. 
Is this a human rights issue? I looked at it because I wondered how many people we would be looking at here. The census figures stated that 0.3 percent of adults in New Zealand say they live in a same-sex relationship—not a very large portion of the population—as opposed to the more than 45 percent of adult New Zealanders who are married. So why would we be looking at this as a human rights issue? Look if civil union were a human rights issue I would be the first one in there championing the cause but I do not think it is. Nor do I think that marriage is a human rights issue because the moment it is then so is polygamy. Why is the House not pushing a bill along to the select committee today celebrating polygamy? 
We have heard from a speaker before who said that a marriage should be between two people. Well why? We know that in our culture marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been defined and used over many many years—well before there was a State a Crown or the Christian religion. So why do we not have polygamy? The Ministry of Women’s Affairs put out a discussion paper last year—and one knows how its discussion papers end up in Government policy—suggesting that we should be recognising polygamy on the basis of cultural sensitivity. Well what about the cultural sensitivity of New Zealanders? 
Marriage is an institution that requires a great deal of commitment and with the no-fault divorce laws we have these days far more commitment than ever before. There is also a public policy issue here. While I am on the issue of human rights why is it not a human rights issue that so many Maori women are not allowed to speak on marae in this country? What has happened in this country is that anything that is flavour of the month becomes a human rights issue. 
What about the harm to marriage? We are told by some people that this bill will not affect marriage. If two lots of currency are put into a country there will be a change or some effect. When the euro went into Italy the lira suddenly became unpopular with young people. If this bill goes through civil union will become the new thing for young people. It will replace marriage. In 20 years’ time the only people who will be married will be old fogies like myself and my husband. Members have already heard from the young Labour member who said that some of her friends were thinking about a civil union. That is what will happen. 
I do not think there is a tremendous amount wrong with marriage and that is one of the reasons I would be willing to look at how marriage could be extended to other than heterosexual couples. I am not saying that I necessarily support it but I am happy to look at it. But I cannot support this bill. It is a dishonest bill. It is not about truth; it is about the manipulation of words and the people of New Zealand will not be fooled by this nonsense.