Copeland Gordon: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:676] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I begin my wrap-up in terms of the debate on this bill by paying tribute to my former colleague Larry Baldock. It was Larry Baldock who drafted this bill and submitted it to the ballot. It was drawn from the ballot in his name and but for the want of what turned out to be about another 50 minutes it would have been voted on in the last Parliament. I want to say that as far as the people of New Zealand are concerned—and Larry Baldock listened very carefully to their voices as I and others have—the reality is that tonight they are interested in only one thing which is whether members of this House are prepared to affirm and confirm traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. People will make their judgment in terms of that reality depending on the way members of this Parliament vote tonight. 
The fine legal arguments that were voiced here tonight which sometimes were quite sophisticated or which sometimes had a degree of sophistry are not necessary on a first reading; that is why we have a select committee process. Yes there are issues in the wording of some of the subsidiary clauses of the bill that might need to be revisited in the select committee deliberation. But the big picture—the true intent and heart of this bill—is a very simple proposition: do people believe that marriage in New Zealand should continue for future generations to be strictly and only between one man and one woman? Once all the rhetoric that has been spoken here tonight has faded and once all the bluff and bluster has finished the people of New Zealand will remember one thing and one thing only from tonight: how members of this Parliament voted on this bill. Were they for marriage or were they against marriage? That factor will form the judgment the electors of this country will come to. 
I believe firmly that marriage should for all future generations of this country remain a relationship between a man and a woman. Why do I say that? The reason is that marriage is a solid rock. It is a tradition that as I mentioned earlier has endured for generations. It is in the interests of creating stable beautiful adult relationships between a man and a woman. It safeguards the interests of children particularly the right of the child—the right of every child—to have both a mum and a dad. Of course there are many situations in life where that is not so. For example solo mothers tell me to keep saying what I am saying because their circumstances are not ideal and not the circumstances they wanted. They say that it is not great being poor or bringing up kids on their own. It is difficult and tough and they only wish that their lives could have been different. 
We need to continue to put that reality before this nation—that marriage is the best model. It is the best model for spouses for children and for society. If members in this House were serious about our appalling social statistics in terms of child violence imprisonment rates and fatherless families then we—like people in Australia—would have no hesitation in saying that marriage was important. I believe that it is important that Parliament this House speaks with a clear voice. To those who say that Parliament should not have any say in this matter I would ask them what on earth leadership is about. Is Parliament to give a lead on this matter or not? 
Tomorrow once the people of this nation know the names of members of this Parliament who voted for and against this bill they will make their own judgment. They will express that judgment as we all know in the reality of the 2008 election. To those members who tonight decide to second-guess the many many hundreds of thousands of people who specifically voted for their parties on the basis that those members would bring social engineering to an end—and I am particularly speaking now of the National Party which has even appointed an eradicator of political correctness—I say that those people will find that disappointing in the extreme and I believe that as a consequence we will see a great change. 
We have not heard the last of this matter by any means. This issue will not go away because the people of New Zealand want members to speak clearly. I appeal to Parliament once again tonight to speak with a clear voice and support this legislation.