Borrows Chester: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8541. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It is a privilege to be able to stand in the House and speak in this debate and I want to congratulate members from right across the House on the way in which they have conducted this debate from the moment this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was introduced or even discussed and right through the select committee process. Unfortunately I was not part of the select committee process but all reports are that those people on the Government Administration Committee conducted themselves very well. 
I think it is a real shame that people on different sides of this debate outside the Chamber do not think those of us who think differently from others within the House hate enough. The fact is that all of us can respect the views of those who are in here and who are making speeches tonight. I find myself in the situation where I agree with so many speakers—those who are speaking for the way I intend to vote and those are speaking against it. I do agree for instance with the last speaker Jan Logie that all relationships should be treated in exactly the same way whether they be heterosexual marriages or whether they be civil unions between heterosexual couples or gay couples or long-term de facto relationships between heterosexual couples or gay couples. 
I believe that the fundamental issue here is the equality of long-term relationships and the status they have before the law and I believe that that is the issue that we should have the courage to debate tonight. I do not believe that changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples is the way to do it. I believe that that is a different way of trying to achieve the main objective which is to achieve that legal status. 
I find abhorrent the way that various groups have acted throughout the course of this debate. As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who set out thinking they would vote against this bill and changed their minds because of the way they have been treated by Christians who supposedly worship in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate. 
It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another they always bring out the worst and they seek to shove those people who do not hold to our faith into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave. 
My fundamental concern with this bill as I stated earlier is that it seeks to redefine marriage as something other than a heterosexual institution which it has always been albeit the odd exception when some Greek wanted to marry his manservant and no doubt somewhere back in history someone wanted to marry some other creature from another species. It does not mean for instance that that detracts from that fundamental definition of what marriage is. 
Marriage does not belong to Christianity. It does not belong to any religion or ethnicity. It has been there since time immemorial and it has always been relative to a heterosexual couple. I do not believe that changing that definition addresses the fundamental issues which are about the equality of long-term relationships before the law. If for instance it is directed at the prejudice within the Adoption Act that is brought about by that definition of marriage then I need to state right here that I would vote for that change in the adoption law because I believe the overriding principle is what is in the best interests of children. So I think this House needs to have the courage to define clearly what the issue is and to have that debate no matter how unpopular that may be and no matter how much trouble we may well get into. 
I also want to just acknowledge a number of comments that members around the House have made and they are about how far we have come. I know within my own experience how far I have come in relation to these issues and that is about that circle of friends. I acknowledge again Jan Logie who talked about the liberal bubble that she lives in. The wider the circle of friends no doubt the more contact that brings as has been the case for me. I have a number of gay friends and gay relatives whom I love and whose friendship I treasure and I consider it a privilege to be part of their lives. 
I have also experienced the prejudice that those people have experienced within their communities. One is a particular cousin of mine an Exclusive Brethren person who having come out has had to leave the faith and his family. His acknowledgment of his status has meant that he has lost absolutely everything. Thankfully he has been welcomed by a loving and caring gay community and an understanding heterosexual community and I believe that that is a good thing. 
 I want to finish off with another point and it is about the comment that the Hon Tau Henare made in respect of decisions that we make not affecting us. The fact is that we are here making decisions that will affect the lives of others and maybe they will affect us as well. I do not accept any suggestion for instance that a gay couple being allowed to be married is going to affect my 34-year marriage to Ella the same way as my good friend Chris Auchinvole does not see that it would affect his marriage. That is not the point. The point is that what we have is a group of people who will be affected by their fundamental beliefs in the fact that they see marriage as a heterosexual institution. By changing that they will be affected in that way and by enhancing the view of those who see it differently you automatically suppress those views and I would have thought that people who had lived under the wrongly oppressive regime for so long would understand that and we could find another way about it. 
I want to finish now because I recognise that time is short by once again restating that I think that this Parliament has conducted itself with exceptional integrity and the population of New Zealand no matter how they would vote on this issue should recognise that. The fact that we can debate strongly different points of view here but acknowledge that they are different points of view—they are not lesser they are not greater; they are just different—and the more that the public of New Zealand looking at this Chamber recognise that the better we will all be. Thank you.