Adams Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Adams Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17517] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on one comment that Moana Mackey made which I think is a very relevant comment. She confirmed that once the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed this would be just another step. I think there is a lot of relevance in that—that this step is just another step. 
Even in the debate in this House I have heard much about the intolerance of those who have a Christian belief or even a religious belief. Just last weekend I was speaking to a pastor from Canada. In Canada they do have same-sex marriages and the same intolerance I am hearing to my viewpoint—which I believe is a viewpoint held by a large number of New Zealanders whether or not they have a religious belief—that marriage needs to be built and kept for what it is in this country. That Minister told me that gay and lesbian communities now target churches and come to them asking to be married. When churches refuse to marry them they then go to the Government and request that the churches’ licence to marry people is removed from them. So let me assure members that if this becomes normalised we are another step further to hate speech. I have heard many say that the Church is free to preach from the word of God but I dispute that. I believe that the Church will not be able to do that. 
They tell me that a tree is known by the fruit it produces. If you give me an apple off an apple tree and you try to convince me that it is an orange— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting him but notwithstanding Speaker’s ruling 70/4 the member on his feet has now twice brought you into the debate. You were very quick to jump on Mr Connell when he did it once. So far that has not been the case with members before and following Mr Connell’s speech. I apologise to the member on his feet for interrupting him but I ask for some consistent ruling from the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I appreciate that. I did not hear it and had I done so I would have called the member to order. Can I just say to the member that it is inappropriate to bring the presiding officer into the debate. He must speak in a different form and I would appreciate the member doing so in future. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I apologise; I did not realise I had brought the Chair into the debate. 
So members will never convince me that an apple tree is an orange tree and I bring this point up because I have heard much about the fact that if this bill is passed it will make no difference to society. Let us think back on the laws we have changed. If the fruit from marriage is children let us seriously think of what has happened to our society. As we have changed the law and the moral base in our nation I ask whether the product of the womb is improving or not. I would challenge that it is not. 
It grieves me that last week I saw in this nation we had had three murders in one day. I think it is well-timed that we need to understand that the tree of marriage needs some fertiliser. It needs some watering. It does not need watering down because our next generation comes only from the product of a man and a woman. 
We can talk about gay and lesbian couples bringing up their children but let me assure us all here that each child has a father and a mother. I would encourage members of the Committee to read Gordon Copeland’s speech; I think he covered many of these aspects in great detail. 
If we have a moral shift on a human right it is always a progression. If for example we take a woman’s right to choose on abortion we can ask what that has led to. It has led now to the killing of 17500 of the children in this nation per year—one every 28 seconds. Members tried to pass legislation called the Death with Dignity Bill. So what are we trying to produce by legislation—a perfect person or a perfect society? I do not think we are improving the outcomes of our society and I believe one of the fundamental reasons is that we have failed to esteem the importance of the family.