McKelvie Ian: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate with a degree of sadness that I can no longer give the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill my support and I wish to explain why. Firstly I do not accept that the Marriage Act as it currently stands denies anyone a human right. We all have the right to act and behave as we see fit in life. We have the right to choose our partners or our wife or our husband. We have the right to join them in legal civil union or marriage as appropriate. The Act as it stands certainly denies many people the right to marry and so it should. There are other positions roles and opportunities that cannot be taken used or filled by us in life and that is how it will always be. We have the right to respect—respect for our differences and respect for our opinions. One of the greatest attributes a human can have is the ability to tolerate difference to accept others for what they are or believe and to give them the opportunity to thrive and lead a positive fruitful life. On that note I want to acknowledge all who have participated in the debate on this bill all of whom have behaved in the best spirit of this Parliament. 
In this bill we are attempting to legislate to eliminate difference and for no reason other than to overturn the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and make it available to everyone. I am sorry but that is not the way of the world. It is not the business of Parliament to rule on an institution that has been in place in life for thousands of years. I can tell you that this Parliament will not be able to turn a sheep into a goat no matter how hard it tries. It is not our business in my view to do that. 
All the changes proposed in the course of this legislative change could be done through strengthening the Civil Union Act. In fact the whole objective could have been effected through changes to the Civil Union Act without affecting the status of many thousands—in fact millions—of New Zealanders who have married in good faith over the years. 
Louisa Wall stated in her closing statement on the second reading debate: “In voting on this bill I hope the House will give a message to all young people: you do not have to change you can be who you are and we as a society will value who you are.” This bill creates a situation that is not about young people or old people; it is about all of us. It is about finding a way for us to live in harmony and I do not believe that we have handled this matter appropriately in the actions we are proposing to take in passing this bill. I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with the leader of New Zealand First. There is no mandate for this House to pass this bill. I have already said that it is not the place of Parliament to make this decision; it is the place of the people and they have not been consulted satisfactorily. I am not a great supporter of referenda but in this case I need to be and so as a consequence I will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I would also like to state that I voted for this bill in the first reading. I voted for it because I genuinely believed that we needed to find a solution to this issue. I still believe that. I cannot however accept that this bill is the best way to deal with it. Thank you.