Borrows Chester: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this debate on the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I will be splitting my call with Jonathan Young MP for New Plymouth. I want to say that today I was pleased to get a text from my good friend Gerard Langford who texted me and said: “Mate I know this is a big day and I know we see these things differently but all the best for today.” I said: “Thanks Gerard you are the gay friend I cite most often.” The fact is that my good friendship with Gerard and his partner Rangi has led me along a line that has got me to change my view in respect of gay things. I believe that people who love one another should be with one another and should commit to one another publicly because I believe that relationships between two people who love one another should be strong should be publicly committed and will enable our community to be stronger.I also believe that the true discussion here is about the equality the legal equality of relationships whether they be heterosexual or whether they be homosexual whether they be marriage or whether they be civil union or whether they be de facto. I believe that they should be equal and I think it is a shame that amongst many people who are within our community they are not. I think that that is really to our detriment. I would like to think that people would be able to look across relationships within our community and see that that is right that people who love one another should be able to commit to one another. I am also of the opinion that those people who have come out and argued from a strident faith perspective that this is a wrong vote are wrong in themselves.I also believe though that we should be having a debate tonight about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I will be voting against this bill because I think we should be having the larger debate and that debate is about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I believe very strongly for instance that two people who are married who are in a heterosexual relationship should be allowed to be able to do that. I do not believe for one moment that two people who are of the same gender and who commit to one another in any way at all detracts from the 34-year marriage that my wife and I enjoy. I believe that this debate should be about what marriage is about. If that is about the equality of legal status of relationships within our society then we should be having the courage or the balls or whatever it is to have exactly that debate.I am concerned too—and I have had discussions this week with members across the House and Louisa in particular—about for instance the status of those civil celebrants and those celebrants of organisations such as the Anglican and the Methodist Churches who have not taken a stand or a position in respect of this particular bill or gay marriage in effect. They should be able to rest in the confidence that the Human Rights Commission has given them that they will be able to refuse the opportunity to wed gay couples who present themselves for marriage on the basis of their own opinion and their own belief. It is important to state that now although it may be very dry and unemotional to be able to do that because in terms of statutory interpretation in times to come it will become important that this Parliament is resting on the advice it has had.Having said that I would like to just acknowledge this: I came to this House as a fairly ignorant person out of the provinces in order to represent the constituents of Wanganui who elected me to Parliament. I am pleased to note that I have established a number of relationships and I have changed my mind in respect of those relationships. I am grateful for the privilege of having friendships and associations. I have the love and the friendship of a number of people who are in a range of relationships; whether they be homosexual or heterosexual means nothing. I believe that this debate—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.