Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity for me to speak on the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the bill I thank all the staff and officials who worked during the select committee hearings and the collection of submissions. A significant number of submissions were received both against and in favour of the bill. I would also like to thank all the submitters for their written and oral submissions. I also take this opportunity to thank the chair of the Government Administration Committee the Hon Ruth Dyson and other members for all the hard work they have put into this process. 
I begin by sharing some of the words from the holy  
Guru Granth Sahib 
 the living Guru of Sikhs: AwalAllaahNoorUpaavaKudratKeSabBandeEkNoor Te Sab Jag UpjavaKaunBhaleKaunMande. When translated this would most likely read: “The Lord first created his own Light and out of This Light was created all human beings. How can there be one human being good and other cannot be?”. 
My religious belief and faith is Sikhism. The purpose of me sharing those words with my parliamentary colleagues and you is to clarify that it is not in my religion culture or heritage to discriminate against anyone on any base. I do not believe that any one of us residing in New Zealand is a second-class citizen. I know that for some of my Opposition colleagues redefining what constitutes marriage may not be much of a big deal. However from what my community has shared with me for most of us it is. I base my opposition not on any historic belief but rather on what I saw and heard when I went with an open mind to the select committee hearings across New Zealand. However at each of the select committee hearings none of the arguments presented by the submitters provided any significant rationale for redefining the word “marriage”. 
Furthermore the rights that are being sought are already provided for under the Civil Union Act. In case there are any changes required in civil union law that Act can be tweaked to accommodate these changes. However to change the definition of “marriage” from what it has historically been is something that offends the majority of people who consider it inappropriate especially when those arguing for the change have little in the way of reasoning to support their argument. 
 The basis of this bill is that marriage as a social institution is a fundamental human right for all people regardless of sex sexual orientation or gender identity. All people should therefore have an equal opportunity to act without discrimination or limiting the human rights to one group in this society only which would not allow for equality. In my counterargument can I just say that the right to marry is not and never can be an absolute human right. The law of this country does not permit close family members to marry each other or children or people who are already married. In each case there is good reason for such restrictions. None of them can be classified as discrimination. 
Can I also ask a counter-question? Does everyone who is opposed to the view put forward not enjoy the same human rights as people who seek this amendment? Do we have the right to express what we feel about this issue which stands to change our society? Mirroring the claim that same-sex marriage is a basic human right is correct—if this was the case the rights would have been entrenched in major international human rights agreements signed by New Zealand in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who argue that by proposing this bill they seek to defend the human rights do sound righteous but people who advocate for the change have in my opinion failed to consider the grave implication that the change they seek will have for our society. 
Moreover those who feel reckless about redefining marriage should ask whether including polygamous relationships should be consented for our society. They should ask the question to themselves: what would be the impact of agreeing to the polygamous relationship in our society? Apart from the rational argument and the question I have put forward earlier I ask a simple question of those who argue that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry: does the word “marriage” add any sugar or flavour to their relationship? 
During one of the public hearings I was pleased to see a family who had come to support their daughter’s submission. By the way the submission was in support of the bill. The family bond is one special thing we are fortunate to enjoy in New Zealand. During the hearing I asked the family whether being in a civil union or marriage would affect her or her family bond in any manner. They said no. Some have classed my comment as discriminatory. Again I refer to my opening statement and assure all my brothers and sisters that I believe in humanity and human rights as much as they do. All human beings are equal regardless of where they come from. I honestly do not believe that in standing by my position on marriage I am discriminating against anyone. Marriage for me is something that has unique sanctity inherent in its divine origin given to humanity as the pattern and the plan for the perpetuation of society. 
This attempt to redefine marriage is causing a considerable amount of anxiety in religious organisations and their staff. The prevailing view of churches from Catholic to Pentecost is that the marriage is spiritually sacred to many people in our society. The New Zealand Christian community as a whole rejects the notion that there is no biblical view of marriage. The standard biblical view of marriage first revealed in Genesis and then endorsed by Jesus is the faithful union of one man and one woman. Any other form of marriage is not endorsed by old testaments. The idea of same-sex marriage is biblically unthinkable. Therefore the Church also considers that the Civil Union Act 2004 already provides for the clear societal recognition and legal protection of same-sex relationships. The select committee listened very closely to the submissions made by the Church and therefore recommended that in case the bill is passed no church minister or pastor can be forced to undertake a same-sex wedding. This I think is an excellent example of how democratic our nation is. 
As a citizen of this country I acknowledge accept and respect the aspiration of the homosexual people as citizens of Aotearoa to have their partnership recognised by society and fully protected by the law. However the social and legal arguments presented by those forwarding this argument do not make a compelling case. My concern is to protect the uniqueness of the marriage as a union of a man and a woman. 
Once again I fully endorse the principle of equality as human beings. However I assert that although the people are equal not all relationships are the same. Rather than listening to the catchcries that are based on individualistic argument we parliamentarians must consider the large public good and expectations when we vote on this bill. The larger public good and expectation is that most New Zealanders do not accept this. Society believes it has the right to do anything for ever. It takes little or no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. Australians our neighbours have recently defeated the equivalent legislation of our marriage amendment bill with the resulting vote of 42 in favour and 98 against. I hope— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s time has expired.