Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17451] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to this debate which is very controversial. The House would not be in urgency at this particular time if it were not controversial and it is the intention of the Government to try to rush this bill through before Christmas in the hope of getting it out of the way before we enter next year’s election cycle. It is also a very passionate debate. I believe that all members stand to speak with a great deal of concern either for or against this legislation and the debate will not be conducted without passion. Members hope to conduct themselves in the Chamber with some respect but we will not be able to debate this matter devoid of passion because it is a very very serious issue. 
 I oppose this legislation because I believe it does do serious damage to the institution of marriage in New Zealand and in particular to the importance of the way our families are constituted in this country. There are some foolish things said and even more foolish things done though in the midst of this debate. I think all of us would regret some of the things we have heard said or seen written or actions that have been taken that do not help in being able to address this subject and this bill with the seriousness that it deserves. 
But this is not all one-sided. Before we have sanctimonious claims from one side of the debate that all the errors are on the other side I would like to refer the Committee to the issue of  
Express 
 magazine that was published immediately after the first reading of this legislation. The front page of the magazine had pictures of all the MPs who voted against this bill on its first reading and the title of the page was: “The Ugly Face of Homophobia”. I believe that is a terrible injustice to this Parliament and an injustice to those MPs who have voted according to their conscience against this legislation. I remind those who are supporters of the legislation to bear that in mind and to consider the way in which we may conduct ourselves in this debate before they begin throwing stones across the other side of the Chamber. 
When we speak of upholding marriage we are speaking about not seeing the need for the State to justify or to give formal recognition to same-sex relationships. That really is the issue. Whenever we raise this we are accused of being very narrow. Just yesterday I was in Australia attending the National Prayer Breakfast in the House of Parliament in Canberra. Many of the members of that Parliament and indeed the public of Australia are very proud of the fact that they passed an amendment to their Marriage Act this year upholding the fact that marriage will always be for a relationship between a man and a woman. Those who oppose our stance on this legislation and would call us narrow would have to address that concern against all of our colleagues across the Tasman in Australia and I do not think they would appreciate that too much. 
We have also seen this year in the US elections and in particular in 11 states in the US referenda held on whether same-sex relationships should be recognised either in civil unions or in gay marriage. The people of those states overwhelmingly rejected those proposals which is one of the reasons why I believe the Government is afraid to allow this issue to go to a referendum here in New Zealand. We believe that if more time were allowed for the debate and more New Zealanders were brought up to speed on what this legislation really is about there would be an overwhelming rejection of it by referendum in this country. 
Too many New Zealanders fall into the trap of being tolerant without becoming fully aware of what the issues are really about. When asked if they condone same-sex relationships most New Zealanders will say they do not object they want to leave people alone and they do not want to be judgmental. But when we dig deeper into what this legislation may in fact do over time we find there are some serious issues that will be raised. There is no provision in this legislation to prevent discrimination from being placed upon those who have a different opinion from those who support civil relationships or same-sex relationships. What really concerns me is not what this may do to marriage in my generation or in my children’s generation but what it will do to my grandchildren and generations beyond that as those who are intent on making same-sex relationships equivalent to marriage continue in their campaign over time. 
I do not believe this legislation will affect my marriage at all. I am entirely confident that after 27 years my wife and I have worked out a fairly stable relationship. I do not believe it will affect my children’s relationships. My two daughters who are 26 and 25 years of age have married and I believe they will be able to sustain any attack from this legislation.