Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4921. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 When this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was drawn I indicated that I would vote against it. The reasons that I gave to the media and my constituents at that time remain important to me but the intense public interest shown in this matter has prompted me to go much further in my thinking. I approach the issue as one who respects and wishes to protect the institution of marriage in its historical and current form. I believe that a major purpose of New Zealand’s civil union legislation which was passed before I became an MP was to protect the legal rights of gay and de facto couples. In my opinion if more protection is needed—and it may be—it should be achieved by amending that legislation not the Marriage Act. I have offered to meet supporters of this bill in my electorate to discuss what could be achieved by such a compromise. 
I accept that ours is a secular society but for me and many other New Zealanders our attitude is also deeply embedded in our Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage. I chose that word deliberately not because I expect everyone else to view marriage in that way but because it is how I see it. New Zealanders have a right to understand what the values and beliefs of their MPs are especially at times such as this. One of my favourite plays is Robert Bolt’s  
A Man for All Seasons 
. Tonight for me might be best described as a Sir Thomas More moment. 
For some members of this House and for many members of the public especially those in the younger demographic this is a fairly easy question to answer. They have emailed me and written to me and posted their views on Facebook urging me to change my mind. To them it is a simple human rights issue in that we are all created equal we should be treated equally under the law and that the State has no right nor is there any public interest in denying New Zealanders the legal authority to marry on the grounds that both partners are male or both are female. For me however and for many other New Zealanders the issue is not that simple. Nor is it a question of the State denying the human rights of some citizens. I would never condone the suppression of my gay friends’ and constituents’ human rights. I do not judge them nor regard them in any way as inferior. 
Each day we commence our sittings in this House with a prayer that “we will conduct our affairs and those of this country to the glory of God’s holy name the maintenance of true religion and justice and the public welfare peace and tranquillity of New Zealand.” It has become fashionable to demean the role of churches in society but our modern nation was founded on Christian values with a rich Christian heritage dating back many centuries brought to these shores by our ancestors. That heritage underpins our democratic tradition our legal system our traditional family structures and the freedoms that we so often take for granted. We should not take those institutions lightly and in matters such as the issue we are debating tonight we should be respectful of the voices of our church leaders. Although ours is essentially a Christian heritage we are increasingly a multicultural and a multi-faith society. Although there are many differences reflected in that diversity attitudes to marriage and its special status as a relationship between one man and one woman who honour and remain faithful to each other are consistent. I hope we will hear from representatives of those various faith communities during this debate. 
Yesterday 70 Christian church leaders including numerous national heads of major church denominations both Catholic and Protestant released a joint personal statement in response to this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and I believe it is important that it become part of the record of this first reading debate. “We have made this joint statement” said the Rev. Dr Richard Waugh “because members of Parliament need to be in no doubt what mainstream Christian views are on this matter. This issue is not about equality but about the nature of marriage. All human beings are equal in the sight of both God and society but not all relationships are the same. Marriage has uniquely been about the union of male and female. The State should not presume to re-engineer a basic human institution. The complementary role of male and female is basic to the very character of marriage along with having and raising children. Same-sex relationships are intrinsically different so can never be regarded as true marriage.” 
Marriage as we understand it has for many centuries been the basis of the traditional family unit. During my lifetime the family has come under increasing attack in a variety of ways and I believe our society is much poorer for that. In the joint statement from the churches the ministers urged parliamentarians “to take seriously that for a very significant proportion of the New Zealand public marriage is more than just a legal agreement or social contract but has a sacred character to it and that many people—Christian and otherwise—feel very strongly that the nature of marriage should not be interfered with.” I understand the distress of many in our community around this issue. I wish I could say more and respond more to those representations I have received but I do pray that we will make the right decision this evening.