Hayes John: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 In 2005 while I was campaigning for election to this Parliament many people expressed their concern and anger that the then Wairarapa member of Parliament Georgina Beyer failed to represent their views on the issue of prostitution reform. When elected I undertook to reflect the electorate’s views and I will do that on this legislation designed to promote the Labour Party’s social reform agenda. 
I trust the instincts of my constituents. They provide a perspective that is not imposed by this House nor forced. Whatever differences there may be among us as there must be nothing will shake my conviction from supporting the majority view in my electorate. My judgment on this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is in step with many constituents I have spoken to on the street in the shops in the businesses and in the bars between Waipawa and Martinborough. Like them I consider the bill to be a sideshow; there are more serious issues that this House should be focused on. My constituents do not understand why a change in civil marriage is important. They say it will impact on a few be noticed in their daily life by even fewer people and have minimal if any direct impact on most New Zealanders. 
In response to my request for constituents’ views I have received several thousand replies by way of phone calls letters and emails. Constituents who support the bill argue that discrimination of any kind has no place in New Zealand. They say we need to look no further than the laws enacted by this Parliament over many years that have broken down barriers and opened doors for all who live in this country. They say our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination and our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation yet two men or two women are prohibited from marrying. They say that in the 21st century in New Zealand we should not be willing to accept a legal system that effectively casts one group of people into the role of second-class citizens on the grounds of their sexual orientation. 
Those in my electorate who oppose the bill do so for a range of reasons. They have widely differing political views; they have differing religious beliefs. There are both religious and non-religious views set against same-sex marriage. For Christians marriage involves vows before God and witnesses for a man and a woman to commit to one another to procreate and to raise children. For all religions marriage is not defined by love; it is defined as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. Many of my constituents believe that marriage was introduced into society through religious channels and religion shows marriage not to have anything to do with same-sex partnerships. For these people it is not possible for marriage to be redefined beyond the boundaries of a woman and a man. They worry that if marriage is redefined once it could continue to be redefined. They see this bill as legalising by stealth the adoption of children by gay parents. They fear the extension of boundaries to include relationships we do not as a society currently condone: polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships. These are very genuine concerns to many of my constituents. 
There are many arguments from the religious perspective. However increasingly marriage is not based on one religion. Some constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that the Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave. I see plenty of unions taking place in New Zealand between a man and a woman without any religious context. These are sometimes called marriages and use a celebrant rather than a priest or sometimes these couples choose to have a civil union. Some couples choose not to acknowledge their relationship in any way other than by living together. Many in my electorate consider same-sex couples to have the same means of acknowledging their relationship as heterosexual couples through civil union. Constituents then ask why same-sex couples need to reclassify this union as a marriage. A New Zealand civil union offers the same rights and benefits to parties as spouses to a marriage. The only major difference apart from labels associated is that unlike a marriage civil unions are a civil matter not conducted through a church. 
It is obvious these issues expose a much deeper question for churches and the wider community: what ought to be the involvement of the State in what are essentially religious and spiritual sacraments. Some constituents would rather that there were a complete divorce between the State’s recognition of a marriage—a civil union—and the churches’ solemnisation or blessing of matrimony as in the case of many European countries. The fact is that a civil union is the same as a marriage and a rose is a rose so the legal issue appears mere semantics. 
Each of us present today is a fleeting transient on the stage of this country’s history. We do not have the right to sweep aside the traditions that exist in our communities. They are not ours alone to deal with as we wish. This place belongs to every New Zealander. That is why I have asked my constituents how I should represent their views on this issue.