Bradford Sue: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Bradford Sue: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17511] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Part 2 which we are discussing this morning lies at the heart of the Civil Union Bill. Paul Adams talked about the sun rising over our nation with this legislation. However I am afraid that our interpretations of what that particular rising sun might mean are very different indeed. 
What I find phenomenal in this debate is that in the 21st century in a country that prides itself on its tolerance and respect for human rights this House has members like Mr Adams who hold the most strange 19th century attitudes towards members of the rainbow community. These members of Parliament seem to have no conception of the spectrum of sexuality that all of us are part of like it or not gay or straight or anywhere in between. Such a black and white approach to both sexuality and life leads to the kind of black and white theologies and philosophies that are the most dangerous to anyone who deviates from the straight white male norm. We have only to look at history and indeed that history goes way back before the 19th century—it is a history of humankind—and around the world even today to see some of the terrible things that happened in the name of those black and white theologies that condemn people like prostitutes and homosexuals. I am thinking of the burning of a gay young man in America and of the decapitation of prostitutes in Basra. That is still with us and that is what we are fighting against in this Parliament today. 
Thank goodness I am part of a Parliament and of a country that is heading in another direction and under another kind of sun. Like my fellow Green MPs I am honoured to be among the majority in this House who will be voting for this significant step forward in the long long struggle for true respect and liberation for all people in this country regardless of our gender or our sexuality. In fact speaking personally I would rather be voting on gay marriage here today. At least with the Civil Union Bill and its companion relationships bill same-sex couples will at last have the chance to achieve the same sense of commitment in a loving relationship that straight people have been entitled to always. 
Just speaking briefly about the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I would like to stress how critical it is that that bill is passed as soon as is practicable otherwise the bill today will simply be a hollow gesture. I listened with interest to the comments made by Bill English on some of the problems associated with the interface between the relationships bill and the social security legislation—an area with which I have some familiarity. I hope that some of us will be involved in the Government’s ongoing attempts to sort out the vexed question of relationships “in the nature of marriage” that this bill has brought up. That discussion is long overdue and I hope that the Government will work with us on that question. 
Like all other MPs supporting this bill in the last few weeks and months I have been subject to a torrent of communication from the bill’s opponents. While I respect the right of all people to their honest beliefs and their right to express them I have to say that on the whole I simply do not understand their arguments even with the best will in the world. One of their main arguments seems to be that civil union for same-sex couples will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. I simply do not comprehend that. How will two gay men or two lesbian women entering a committed relationship in the eyes of the State threaten my or anyone else’s marriage? How will any loving and committed relationship gay or straight be undermined by anyone else’s loving and committed relationship? As many members have pointed out marriage is threatened all the time by all sorts of things but civil union is not one of them. In fact I find it ironic and incomprehensible that so many married MPs seem to think that it will be a moral wrong for other citizens to have the right to take the same vows or similar vows as they have. 
Underpinning a lot of this debate are theological beliefs. As happened with the very liberal Biblical interpretation by some of the people in the prostitution reform debate they seem to want to try to impose their ideology on what is now a secular society. I do not accept that New Zealand in this day and age is a religious society. Over a million of us are either not Christians are a part of some other faith are heathens or are Christians who interpret the Bible in a very different way from some members in this Chamber. As anyone who has studied church or biblical history will be very well aware every word of every single translation of the Bible has been argued over and over again all over the world and through two millennia. Like many others I do not accept that the word of God is about condemning homosexuals as unrighteous wicked or evil.