Copeland Gordon: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:664] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. 
I hope every member of Parliament will support this bill on its first reading. I say that because the bill simply clarifies and codifies in New Zealand law marriage as it has always been traditionally understood not only in New Zealand but throughout the world not only in our culture but in every culture not only in the Christian religion but in every religion. In 2005 some people express surprise that the definition of marriage proposed in the bill—namely that “For the avoidance of doubt marriage may only occur between one man and one woman.”—is not already in the Marriage Act 1955. However for someone of my generation that really is no surprise at all. On the contrary I am quite certain that in 1955 it would never have occurred to any member of the then New Zealand Parliament that it was necessary to define the word “marriage.” Those members were simply putting into legislative form what people had understood for millennia—namely that marriage is between one man and one woman. That reality would have been patently obvious to everyone as our society had never contemplated any other arrangement or interpretation. That of course is because marriage is the oldest institution known to the human race. It goes back to the beginning because at the beginning there was one man and one woman. 
However for the record let us look at the dictionary definition of the word “marriage”. That definition reads: “state or relationship of being husband and wife. … the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife.” All this bill does is to codify that definition in New Zealand law. As I have already said it was simply unnecessary to do so in 1955 but it is now necessary for a number of reasons. The first reason is the well-known 1996 court case  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
. The applicants in that case went to the High Court by way of a test case seeking a decision as to whether same-sex couples could lawfully obtain a marriage licence. The Court of Appeal eventually in 1998 ruled that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. 
However as the Ministry of Justice has made clear in its advice to the Attorney-General although the Court of Appeal ruling upholds the common law understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman this could be overturned because of overseas decisions. That is the critical issue that Parliament needs to determine today. The traditional common law position could be overturned because that has happened in Canada in the state of Massachusetts in the USA and now in South Africa where marriage has been reinterpreted by the courts to include two people of the same gender—in other words a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Canada the state of Massachusetts and South Africa all have common law traditions; accordingly if a couple of the same sex were to approach the New Zealand courts again for the right to marry then of course decisions in those jurisdictions could be cited as creating a precedent. I am asking Parliament tonight to pre-empt that possibility to put the matter beyond doubt—members should note the words of the bill: “For the avoidance of doubt”. 
Interestingly the Court of Appeal in delivering the court’s decision expressed the view that the question of whether the law should be changed to authorise marriage between gays and between lesbians should be decided by Parliament. So this bill is actually if you like a reaction to the Court of Appeal’s comment in that regard exactly in the way that in different circumstances Parliament reacted when the same Court of Appeal ruled that Maori might have access to private ownership of the foreshore and seabed. This bill actually tries to reverse that progress by ensuring that Parliament speaks first. 
That is actually the principal issue that is involved in my bill. In addition however it specifies that same-sex marriages registered in foreign countries such as Canada and now South Africa are not recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Such a provision of course is necessary now only because as I mentioned the word “marriage” in those countries has been extended to include same-sex couples. 
Also the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should be amended to ensure that measures intended to promote or advance marriage—for example pre-marriage counselling—are not considered discriminatory. Obviously only those who intended to marry would wish to go to a pre-marriage course. It would be quite ridiculous to say that such measures somehow discriminated against people who did not wish to marry. Such logic is deeply flawed. I think in fact it is patently obvious that such courses should be open just to married couples; that requires little further argument from me. It would be ridiculous for example to argue that a marriage enrichment course is discriminatory because it excludes single people or de facto couples. It would be a bit like saying that Victoria University by having an entrance standard thereby discriminated against people who did not meet the entrance standard. In order to be married under our present law one has to find a partner whom one wishes to marry has to decide to marry that person has to be accepted etc. When we think about it it is actually a conditional situation that is very much akin to an entrance qualification to university. 
I will mention in conclusion another couple of matters. A DigiPoll on this issue was conducted earlier this year and it indicated that 57 percent of New Zealanders believe that our law should state clearly that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I speak here tonight for those 57 percent of people. Secondly I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Australian Parliament passed last year with the support of all the parties in the Australian Parliament legislation that covers the same ground as this bill. Accordingly this bill’s passage tonight would serve to harmonise the law concerning marriage in both Australia and New Zealand—something we like to do. 
I very much hope that this first reading of my bill will following the Australian example attract the support of all parties. No fewer than 19 states in the United States of America have also passed similar legislation to safeguard the institution of marriage. Some may argue—and I am sure they will in this debate from what I have so far heard informally from other parties—that the chances of our courts overturning the Quilter decision are remote. Well maybe but the question for Parliament is whether we should take that risk. Should we take a risk like that with the most basic the oldest and the most important institution in our society? It is an institution that is indeed the cornerstone and foundation of our society and the fundamental rock upon which the strongest families in our society are built now and have been built for many many generations. 
Some may argue—I have heard already from the Minister of Justice in question time yesterday—that it is a waste of Parliament’s time to debate this matter. I in contrast say that there is nothing more vital to our society and its future than for Parliament to take the time to send a clear signal to the people of this country that the Parliament of New Zealand confirms and affirms the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”—namely that it is between a man and a woman. But for those who want to make this an argument about parliamentary time I would not object to a motion that asked that the House extend its time tonight so that we could pass the bill through its first second and third readings this evening. I would be absolutely happy about that. If that would save Parliament’s time then if it were moved I certainly would not object. That would deal with that issue. 
I will note with interest tonight as will the people of New Zealand the way that parties vote on this legislation. We have just had an election. It is well known—it has actually been referred to indirectly by the Prime Minister herself—that it was the social engineering agenda of the last Government that produced the election results we saw just a little while ago. Labour had its worst result in 11 provincial seats in that party’s history. I think some people from the National Party will vote tonight with the Labour Party on this issue and if they do that they will deeply disappoint the hundreds of thousands of people who cast their votes for National at the last election.