Goldsmith Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9033. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 Reading Tony Blair’s autobiography some time back I was struck by his observation about politics that “when you decide you divide.” and I am conscious of the grave responsibility that is on the House this evening. I have certainly struggled with this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and have given it a great deal of thought because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies. 
My conservative instincts on one hand lead me to respect traditions and the wisdom of centuries. Marriage has traditionally been conceived as being between a man and a woman and in the British and Christian traditions for centuries it has been between one single man and one single woman. That has been the case only because it has made perfectly good sense. Institutions and ideas change over time but the conservative in me makes me hesitate before changing something that has served society well for so long. I certainly understand and respect the strength of feeling of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way we are. 
Running parallel to that however my guiding political belief is my commitment to freedom for people to live their lives in different ways with respect. Life is interesting society is dynamic and culture is diverse when people are free and have the liberty to live in different ways. It was 25-odd years ago when we agreed that the State should not outlaw homosexual acts and very few people disagree with that now. 
So I can understand why some gay couples would like to have access to the institution of marriage. People often ask: “Well why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already?”. The answer of course is that words are important which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it. 
On balance I have decided that for me freedom or individual conscience trumps tradition so I am supporting this bill. 
My background has been that I was raised in the Christian faith in the Baptist Church. Many of my relatives and friends from that background are disappointed that I am voting for this bill. I understand their disappointment but I would remind them that the Baptist Church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. The early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established Church and they suffered terribly for their individual beliefs. The tolerance of religious non-conformity that English-speaking peoples had arrived at certainly by the 19th century was fundamental in establishing many of the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. We are so much better for it accepting that we can all live together in a society even though we fundamentally disagree on matters that are very dear to our hearts. 
Many people have also raised the matter of defending the role of the family as the bedrock of society. Is this bill weakening the family? I am not convinced that it is. I do believe that strong and responsible families are essential to a successful society and that there is much work to do to strengthen families but the real political battleground there if indeed there is such a battleground is in my view over the messages and signals that the State sends particularly through its welfare policies. In my view the signal that the State has sent over the past few decades through welfare policies has in many ways undermined the family and dealing with that is far more important than whether gay couples can call themselves married or not—in my view. 
Turning back to the bill like many of my National colleagues I needed first to be reassured that freedom of religion would be maintained so that no marriage celebrant would be forced against their will to marry gay couples. Those assurances were given and an amendment to the bill strengthens protection for marriage celebrants and I am sure that the will of Parliament on this matter is very clear. An amendment by my colleagues Macindoe and Mitchell makes that even clearer. 
I also voted for a proposal that there be a referendum on this topic before the bill became law. I see it as materially different to a referendum on Government policy such as partial asset sales where the Government policy was explicitly outlined before an election and is core to economic policy. In those circumstances to my mind there is no argument for a separate referendum. It seems to me though that on matters of major social change such as this particularly when there has been relatively little discussion before or during an election campaign a referendum is appropriate. [ 
Bell rung 
] So I was disappointed that that was lost and—