Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17491] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I believe that there is something that undermines marriage and that is infidelity—where a husband cheats on his wife and takes to his bed a woman who is not his wife. He is married to that woman they have children together they live together and to all intents and purposes they have a perfect and happy life together but he breaks the sacred vow they made on their wedding day by cheating on his wife children church family community and the whole of society. Gay couples do not do that to another relationship—unless they are breaking the particular commitment that they have made to each other. The point I am making is that it is extremely hypocritical to suggest in any context that because a husband and wife have the perfect marriage from the outside that marriage is perfect on the inside as well. It is wrong. 
 I think it is important for people to realise that what we are debating in this Chamber is actually whether a couple who want to make a commitment to each other for the rest of their lives are entitled to have that commitment recognised by the law. This is not about gay marriage; this is about allowing same-sex couples to have their genuine committed relationships recognised by the law. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with saying that we welcome people entering into long-term committed relationships. I sat at the select committee and heard people say that gay people were more promiscuous than everyone else. I was surprised that so many heterosexual people had not had sexual relations before they got married. I was very surprised that so many men had never had sexual relations with anyone other than the woman they had married. I was surprised at the numbers of those people who came before the select committee. I assume that that was what they were saying because it was the standard they expected of everyone else. 
 But what is really the issue is that a couple who are together want to be able to have a ceremony that acknowledges their relationship so that they can then spend the rest of their life together having an anniversary date on which they can celebrate the beginning of their relationship. I probably have an anniversary date other than my wedding date. It is the date I started living with my husband—living in sin I guess some of the church people who came before the select committee would have said. I lived with my husband for 5 years before we got married. I have been married to him for 4 years. My wedding anniversary is my anniversary date not the date that we started living together. I see nothing wrong with allowing a date to be given to people who want to make that commitment to each other. Surely that encourages stability and genuine relationships in our society. Why does it matter that they are same-sex relationships? Those relationships will continue to exist de facto if not de jure. 
People have made the point that we are in urgency. These are the normal sitting hours of the House. The House normally sits until 10 o’clock on a Tuesday night. All that urgency is is extended sitting hours. It is a nonsense to suggest that this bill is being rushed through. The select committee sat through hundreds of submissions and we listened to them very carefully. Some of us sat on the select committee and took our role very seriously. Even though Murray Smith from United Future has a view different from mine on this bill I have to respect the contribution he made at the select committee. I see Edwin Perry from New Zealand First; he had exactly the same level of commitment at the select committee. We can have differences of view and we can respect those views. 
This is not about gay marriage; this is about accepting that there are couples in our society who are different. They are not heterosexual; they are homosexual. There are gay and lesbian couples in our community who deserve to have their relationships recognised in the law. That is all that civil union does. It does not threaten my marriage. It does not threaten the marriage of any members in this Chamber—unless that marriage is threatened by infidelity by their walking away from the promises they made to their wives on the day they got married by their breaking those promises. I have never broken that promise to my husband and I made that promise genuinely. I would never betray the trust that he has in me and that I have in him.