Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17389] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill and I want to acknowledge the hundreds of people who appeared in person and the thousands who made written submissions. I particularly thank those who shared their own thoughts and feelings rather than copied words off a website designed to present fiction as fact and to invoke fear and loathing in the minds of decent New Zealanders. 
 I call them decent New Zealanders because I heard each one of them express love for their country love for their husband or wife and love for their children but at the same time they expressed sadness for something intangible something they felt this bill would take from them. They told us at the Justice and Electoral Committee that their own marriages would not be affected by civil union but maybe it would change something about the way our country was in the future. They expressed concern that the Christian teachings by which they were raising their children would be undermined by civil union. But I know that the Christian values they teach their children are undermined when they turn on the television set every day of the week. 
I have been saddened by the extent of intolerance extended against one minority by another and they are a minority. Not one submitter who was opposing the bill told the select committee how he or she had personally been harmed by the existence of gay and lesbian couples in our communities. Therefore not one submitter was able to warn of any harm that would arise if the State gave recognition to relationships that will continue to exist de facto rather than de jure if the law does not pass. 
Civil union like marriage is not compulsory. It is simply providing an option that does not exist now. Many submitters who came with the Maxim Institute website list of 10 reasons to oppose the Civil Union Bill said the institution of marriage would be undermined by civil union but none said how. I mention the Maxim Institute because at least it had the integrity to make a submission to the select committee unlike others who got their children to march against so-called bad people. 
I want to comment about people using their children. Here is a fax I received yesterday from someone in my electorate: “Dear Ms Dalziel re: the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. I need my mum and my dad because they help me a lot with the things I have to do. My mum helps me with my school work. My dad helps out the family by earning money. Please vote against these bills.”—he signed his name—“Age 7”. A 7-year-old was made by his parents to write a letter to his member of Parliament about something he knows nothing of. 
It seems as if the strategy was to say that because the majority of New Zealanders support civil union but oppose gay marriage let us call it “gay marriage” so that we can build a body of opposition to it. But it is not gay marriage. It provides an alternative to marriage for those who cannot marry because they are the same sex or choose not to marry for whatever reason. 
We heard from the “Maximites” that gay men were more promiscuous than other people yet they would deny them recognition of the relationship that surely like marriage would support people in committed and long-term relationships. We also heard from the “Maximites” that children needed a mum and a dad and that this would lead to gay and lesbian couples parenting children. The response is that they already do. Gay and lesbian couples came to the select committee with their children—both young and adult children—who asked us why some people did not want them to call themselves a family. How do we respond to a question like that? They asked for recognition of their relationships for the sake of their children. 
The “Maximites” told us that children needed a mother and a father. But as the Justice and Electoral Committee reported the research either was not relevant to the question or in fact they misquoted the outcomes. Children do suffer in same-sex relationship families but only from the vicarious stigma they inherit from the way their parents are treated by other people. 
Then we had the submissions and emails that repeated all the nonsense we heard during the debate on the Human Rights Act in 1993. I said I would read one out if I had time: “Dear member of Parliament Homophobia homophobia if not why not? The Catholic investigation report in the USA reveals that over 80 percent of the paedophiles are homosexuals. Is it an emotional disorder to fear paedophiles? If the homosexual agenda is fully implemented heaven forbid then the crime of paedophilia would disappear because one of their stated goals is to legalise paederasty man-child relationships.” That is the sort of absurd nonsense that has been driving the other side of the debate. I ask members to support the bill.