Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13941] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I would like to acknowledge that members in this House are showing each other a great deal of respect in this debate. It is a debate that people feel very emotional and passionate about and I hope that this approach continues for as long as this bill continues through the House. 
I will be voting for this bill out of the strength of my convictions and for that reason I am voting for the first reading of the Civil Union Bill. This bill harms no one but because it is so important to a large number of people in our community I think it should progress. 
Some people have claimed that this bill demeans marriage and I invite those people to tell me how this manifests in a tangible way; how in their marriages and in their everyday lives the passage of this bill will affect their relationships with their partner their husband their wife and their children. The strength of my relationship with my partner is not determined by the status of other people’s relationships. When I consider pledging my trust my commitment my loyalty and my love to my partner I do not consider other people’s relationships with their partners as part of that. This bill if it goes through will not make a blind bit of difference to my family. Our lives will go on as per usual. Again I challenge opponents of this bill to tell me exactly how this bill if it becomes an Act will adversely affect their families other than in their own minds. 
People have written to me to ask what they should tell their children. If they tell their children that marriage is now demeaned and if they tell their children that the Civil Union Bill means their marriage is less important or has less status then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. I suggest that opponents of this bill go back to their families and remind them that they love them and that whatever other people do in New Zealand—whatever other kinds of relationships they have—has no bearing on the importance of their relationship or their relationship within their families and with their children. 
This raises an interesting point. According to the Maxim Institute which frankly I think ranks somewhere below the Flat Earth Society marriage is not about whether one loves somebody. Well I do not think that statement will enhance anyone’s view of marriage. Marriage is not an employment contract. If that is the vision of opponents of this bill then I tell them to look no further than their own backyard if they are worried that marriage will become less popular. In light of this view that marriage has always been just about duty and tradition and not primarily about love I would say that marriage probably has changed. I think that if we asked New Zealanders if we asked married couples what is the fundamental basis for marriage—what is the most important thing—they would say love. If marriage has changed because it is now based on love then I believe that is a positive thing. Marriage is more than a package of legal rights. If we just had to fill out a form and send it off and we got back in the mail a certificate that said we were now married I do not think as many people would marry. It is about a celebration: a celebration of one’s relationship and a celebration of love. 
Like Mr Carter I appreciate that some churches may not want or may not feel ready to include that as part of their services and that is why I support the Civil Union Bill. A lot of my friends are in de facto relationships. Most expect to marry but some absolutely do not want to. Their reasons are many and varied and I suggest that they go far further than what this House and past Parliaments have done. But some have indicated to me that they would consider a civil union. I have received correspondence from many in the same position. 
I believe that this bill is a positive step. Monogamy is important. Marriage is important but only if it involves commitment and only if it is monogamous. I believe extramarital affairs to be far more demeaning to marriage and far more destructive to families than our allowing people who love each other to engage in a civil union. 
Opponents of this bill are asking me to look one of my best friends in the face—a friend who is like a brother to me who came out in his 20s and who has been in a committed and loving relationship with a fantastic guy for nearly 6 years—and tell him that his relationship is not worthy of legal and social recognition and that it is less valid than my own relationship with my partner. I will not do that. Marriage and civil union are not the same. One has behind it thousands of years of interesting tradition and history; the other’s history begins here today. In that light I record my support for the Civil Union Bill.