Cullen Michael: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17607] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I want to take the call in part to say to the member who preceded me that although I respect his views deeply I have been here for 23 years and I do not know how many times I have heard the death of the Labour Party pronounced during that period. We leave Lazarus for dead in terms of our ability to rise from the grave. I have seen parties come and go in this House. Social Credit—where is it now? The Alliance—where is it now? I have a feeling that one or two parties here now will be gone at some point in the future. 
The ACT party will almost certainly be gone at the next election. I want to say one word to Mr Franks: if he is so keen on referenda will it be the ACT party’s policy at the next election that any State asset sale will be subject to a referendum? Oh no no of course not! We could not do that! We could not trust the people to make that kind of decision; that would be far too dangerous! 
I want to come back to something I touched on this morning and that is the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law—the law of the Church and the law of the State. Nothing in this bill detracts from the law of the Church. Marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. If Parliament legislates for a civil union marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church continues to draw a distinction between the significance of that sacrament and any other marriage performed under any other form of even Church or secular law. That does not change. But for the State it is important to regularise relationships across the board. We started doing that in 1754 in English law and we carried on in 1836 in terms of extending marriage outside the closed circle of the Church of England and the Quakers. They were the only people who could marry under English law before 1836. That is actually not that long ago in terms of the evolution of our society. 
I have heard this stuff about the collapse of Western civilisation before. I think probably Mr Copeland is one of those who thinks the Roman Empire collapsed because of moral decay. It is a bit strange that it collapsed after it was converted to Christianity and after the collapse of republican libertarianism in the 1st century BC and after all the stuff about lions versus Christians in the Coliseum had long since gone. It was after all of that that the Roman Empire collapsed when it was a Christian civilisation; that is when it collapsed—the barbarians overwhelmed it. 
I want to know how recognising the deep emotional feelings of two people who do not wish to go through or cannot go through a formal marriage ceremony affects Mr Copeland’s marriage or my marriage. How does the fact that both of my daughters live in non-married permanent relationships with extremely nice young men affect the meaning of the sacrament of marriage to Mr Copeland as a practising Roman Catholic? I was raised as a sort of Anglican and for 5 years a real one. I myself am an atheist and have been so since I was at secondary school. If one goes to Christ’s College it is the obvious thing to be actually at the end of the day! I do not understand how anybody can feel that his or her feelings and beliefs are in any way entrenched upon by this bill. 
In terms of what Dr Hutchison raised I have to say that sometimes when one has been too close to an issue for too long one can actually fail to see its significance. I have a feeling that is his problem about sexual differences to put it as bluntly as I can. I fail to see how recognition of civil unions can affect what he said. He said that people’s liberties stop at the point where they entrench upon others but recognising a civil union of two gay people does not entrench upon the meaning that marriage whether through the church or elsewhere has for other people. If we do not recognise two gay people or two heterosexual people who wish to live together in a civil union but do not wish to go through a marriage ceremony particularly an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony we are saying to them that the State does not recognise their relationship as having some permanence or some meaning. Why do we do that because the State in fact is neutral between those things? 
I make a final point and I relate it back to a referendum. A referendum on these issues is dangerous because these issues are about the rights of minorities not about the rights of majorities. I say to those with deep religious beliefs that if one starts making the freedom of one’s religion dependent upon the will of transitory majorities one is treading on very very dangerous grounds indeed. I say to Mr Copeland a practising Catholic that he should investigate the long long history of Catholic oppression within even our society. It was incomprehensible for a long period of time that a practising Roman Catholic could be Prime Minister of New Zealand. Now it is taken for granted that that is a possibility.