Clark David: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4922. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Some senior colleagues whom I respect greatly have requested that I consider seeking a call on this contentious bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and having given the matter thought I now stand in the House to speak my truth on this matter. 
Many of you following this debate will know that I am a Presbyterian minister. I have been a part of similar debates in the Church in recent decades. But in this House I do not formally represent the Church. I represent Dunedin North and in this debate my own conscience. Across the Church as across society there are many views on the issues of sexuality and marriage. Like all MPs I have been lobbied heavily by people on both sides of the argument. I want to relate a couple of stories that have come to me through that experience. The first is of an elderly gay man a friend of mine who petitioned me not to support this legislation because in his view he fought for civil unions. He fought for equality before the law and he got it. He did not want the heterosexual baggage of property rights and other history that is associated with marriage and rightly he pointed to the Christian scriptures where he said there was no model for marriage that is consistent. What we have in the Old Testament is largely polygamy and there is an absence of advice certainly from Jesus in the New Testament on the topic of marriage. I suspect he would say and would be of the view that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as really a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality. 
A second person who petitioned me against supporting this bill was a young pastor from a church in my electorate who was very genuinely concerned by some research he had read that suggested that children who grow up raised by parents who are not their biological parents are likely to be worse off and have worse life outcomes. He was very serious and genuine in his concerns. I also received many voices in favour of this legislation particularly from younger members of the gay lesbian bi and transgender community and many people in that community can simply not understand what the fuss is about. I think also of gay and lesbian couples I know who are fantastic parents of fantastic children. 
Personally I would prefer a model like the German one where civil unions are conducted by the State for all couples and marriages are carried out outside the State’s grasp for religious or other reasons. But that is not what is on offer here. I have been persuaded in this debate by two things in particular. Marriage is to most people a secular term certainly for younger folk. I know for example that in the Presbyterian Church where I was trained and have practised marriage was never regarded as a sacrament. That is why Presbyterian ministers were amongst the first in New Zealand to conduct garden weddings. 
The second thing that has persuaded me is that overseas there is still discrimination against those who cannot claim marriage who cannot tick the marriage box. The strongest support for marriage equality that I have experienced has come from the age group most likely to be engaging in marriage in the future. It is for those people who will be inheriting and carrying forward the institution of marriage that I am supporting the bill. I am mindful that many of my colleagues from across the House who would claim a strong faith background do not support this view. I am respectful of their beliefs and although I know that they have carefully and prayerfully examined their own consciences I am mindful that they may come to a different view from mine. My thoughts are with them and with people wrestling personally with the impact of this bill on their lives. Thank you.