Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17648] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I wish first to thank those who have contributed to this debate. The enormous public interest shows that far from being apathetic New Zealanders have an acute interest in politics. I acknowledge in particular the commitment shown by members of the closed Brethren Church in being here for the duration of the debate. I want to thank all of those who wrote in support of the bill and the organisers of the civil union campaign and I want to thank the Green Party for having a policy commitment to equal rights for homosexual people. All nine Green MPs are voting for this bill because our consciences say it is the right thing to do and because our party thinks it is the right thing to do. That is our mandate. 
I have been trying to understand the reasons why people oppose the bill and I think I can boil it down to three basic arguments: that this is gay marriage which opponents see as an intrinsically bad thing; that this will weaken marriage thereby harming society; and that it is unnecessary. 
Firstly is this gay marriage? Well I wish it were. We would have preferred to amend the Marriage Act to allow homosexual couples to marry. This bill does not do that. But it is not quite as simple as that. Marriage has a cultural meaning and a legal meaning. When most people speak about marriage they refer to the practice of two people making a public and long-term commitment to each other. Those practices are culture-bound and what we mean by them changes over time. Until recently Christian marriage was akin to a property right over women’s fertility. For most of history marriage has not been enacted in legislation and across times and cultures marriage has included polygamy incest and paedophilia. John Boswell an admittedly controversial Yale scholar suggests that gay marriages were celebrated inside Christian churches until around 700 years ago. Same-sex relationships have been celebrated at one time or another by most of the cultures that now inhabit Aotearoa including Polynesian cultures. 
What does marriage mean here today? When I was younger many of my friends and I rejected the concept of marriage because of its connotations of ownership. Then two close friends of mine got married. I asked whether it made a difference. My friend replied that it did and that living together was about individuals but the marriage ceremony joined their families. When I asked my beloved this year on the banks of my ancestral river the Tisza to marry me I was not thinking about the law or about our property arrangements. I wanted to pledge our lives together—for my kin to become hers and hers mine. 
So does this bill create gay marriage? No. In that cultural sense gay marriage already happens. Homosexual couples already go through commitment ceremonies. This bill will not change that but neither in a legal sense does this bill create gay marriage—and this Parliament can enact only law not culture. What this bill does is allow homosexual couples to register their long-term relationships as civil unions with the State. It does not allow them to be married but it does allow them to be coupled. 
Why would gay marriage be bad if the bill did allow it? If marriage is good for society and for individuals we need more not less. This is not the All Blacks where only 15 elite players are allowed on the field. I say the more the merrier. The more people play club rugby the stronger the All Blacks will be. Some say it will be bad because marriage should be only or primarily for the purpose of having children. But we do not forbid people to marry because they are menopausal or because they have had a vasectomy. In any case the Lavender Island survey of gays and lesbians showed 37 percent of female and 14 percent of male respondents had some kind of parenting relationship. Their children also deserve the protection of the law. 
The real issue is the belief that civil unions will destabilise marriage. I have strained my brain over this and I simply do not see how they will. If civil unions destabilise marriage we would see that reflected in the countries with civil union - like legislation. My colleague Sue Kedgley challenged opponents of the bill to show a single example where that had happened. None has been forthcoming. Marriage-rate trends are unaffected by the introduction of civil unions. In Denmark the first country to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they have been since the 1970s. I believe that many opponents of the bill have a genuine concern for the future of our country but I believe that their fears are misguided. 
Finally the weakest argument is that the legislation is simply not needed that homosexual couples can go to a lawyer sign a bunch of documents and relegate their love to a legal contract. Let me read briefly an extract from a gay couple who said: “We have had to spend considerable sums of money on legal fees for the drafting of a relationship property agreement wills and enduring powers of attorney. Despite these moves our relationship still lacks any legal protection even approaching that automatically conferred on our heterosexual friends who choose to marry. In the event of a third-party challenge to any of the documents mentioned for example if one of us fell ill and required someone to consent to his medical treatment the only certainty that the law gives us at the moment is the hope that a judge will regard the arrangements we have made as fair.” 
This bill is not about gay marriage. There is no reason to think it will do anything other than strengthen marriage. And the bill is clearly needed. Let me finish my speech by reminding us all that New Zealanders will be celebrating Christmas in a few weeks—celebrating the birth of a man who embodied love and compassion and was the antithesis of self-righteousness. It is a time to spend with family members of all types regardless of what we think of them. It is a time to show particular compassion and love. It is a time especially to show love to our children. This Parliament today has the opportunity to make a significant contribution to one of the most precious gifts we can give to our children who are the future of this nation. That gift is an Aotearoa grounded in human rights equality and respect for all its people.