Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this debate having been a replacement member of the Government Administration Committee during the final stages of the committee’s work although I regret that I did not hear the many submitters prior to the committee’s deliberations. Nevertheless I have read and considered as many submissions as I could and I have had numerous meetings with constituents and interested parties especially in my own electorate in Hamilton. Many urged me to maintain my vote at first reading against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill; quite a few urged me to change it. 
In recent days both sides of the debate have flooded my in-box with emails. A common theme of many emails from the bill’s supporters given that my Christian faith was and remains the main reason for my position was that ours is a secular society and that my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view but in matters of conscience one must fall back on firm foundations. To ignore what I perceive to be God’s will in this debate would therefore be unthinkable even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one on this matter and I agree with Glyn Carpenter from the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect. I hope those who have contacted me whatever their views believe that I have achieved that even though I have to say I have not always received the same in return. 
New Zealand may indeed be a secular society but marriage has historically been a religious institution for Christians and for most of the many other religions now represented with followers in New Zealand. For that reason this matter is causing huge distress to many and it is quite wrong to say that changing the definition of the word will not affect anyone else. Christians for example believe that marriage was instituted of God himself signifying the mystical union between Christ and his Church. It may be convenient for some to argue therefore that the change of a definition has no great impact on others but that ignores and offends tens of thousands of New Zealanders who think otherwise. 
Last year I indicated that a principal reason for my opposition was my concern that Parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue. I remain very concerned about that as I believe that some of the division that this bill has caused within society in recent months could have been avoided. If the churches could reach an accommodation probably based on the French model whereby all couples undergo a civil wedding after which those who wish to and who meet the criteria of the appropriate church may then also have a religious wedding ceremony I think many more in our country could live with this. Although this would not satisfy all who opposed the bill—and the idea was not considered apparently because it was beyond the scope of the bill—my personal view is that such a division between the functions of Church and State might have achieved much wider public acceptance and some of the hurt that many thousands of the bill’s opponents are feeling might have been avoided or at least lessened. I am personally disappointed that we are not able to consider and debate that option. Without it I think this bill is putting the cart before the horse and I remain unable to support it. 
Although some proponents of the bill argue that religion should have nothing to do with our approach to this issue that in my view is akin to arguing that parents should have no say over their children’s important and sometimes sensitive decisions during their formative years or that unions and employers should have no say in our labour laws. 
I acknowledge the major challenges faced by members of the select committee and the respectful nature of the discussions for which I was present. I also acknowledge the architect of this bill Louisa Wall. A few months ago I accepted an invitation from staff and pupils of Wellington High School to debate this topic with Louisa at one of the largest political meetings I have ever seen. Several of my colleagues thought I was mad and would probably be lynched. After my initial hesitation however I decided to do it because I felt it was important for young people to have both sides of the argument to consider. Although I was in a minority of one when I started—and probably still when I finished—I was very impressed by the pupils’ courtesy and the interest they showed in the issue. I enjoyed the experience and I respected the approach that Louisa Wall took that afternoon. Thank you Louisa. 
That aside given the huge public interest in this topic and the significant ramifications of the change that is proposed I am very disappointed that the committee was unable to hear many of those who took the trouble to prepare personal submissions and who asked to be given the opportunity to appear before the committee. I know from many from my own electorate who have spoken to me and others from around the country who have written that there are hundreds of New Zealanders who feel aggrieved at being shut out of the process on a discussion of a matter of such importance to them and to their faith communities their cultural and ethnic groups and so on. 
This is not just for Christians—far from it—but as I have said my personal reservation remains primarily grounded in my Christian faith and my difficulty in believing that God wants this change to be made. This is not in my view evidence of a religion that is out of touch or of Christians being unable to love others equally and without passing judgment but it is about honouring him and his word. It is not to say that I have not been moved and challenged by many Christians including four ministers in my own city who have debated the issue with me and argued that just as Christ always sided with the persecuted and the marginalised in his own times we should read into that that he would today side with gay couples who are currently denied the opportunity to marry. That is why I offered in good faith to work with those who felt the Civil Union Act needed to be strengthened and I repeat that offer. 
Some have said that this bill grants a basic human right. I do not believe that marriage is a universal human right because there will always be those who do not meet the legal criteria to marry for various valid reasons. I have some sympathy for those who fear that if this bill is passed pressure could arise at some future date for other changes to be made to the Marriage Act to accommodate changes that today would seem unthinkable. It is less than a decade since almost every member of this House many of whom are still here argued that a change to the Marriage Act of this nature was out of the question. That is why many New Zealanders regard this bill as a breach of faith by those they sent here to represent them. 
Most societies have believed and most religions have taught for thousands of years that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman who are over a certain age and not committed to any other relationship. It is sacred and said to represent as I mentioned the union between Christ and his Church. Maintaining this belief in 2013 has not suddenly become a bigoted or homophobic view just because this bill happened to be drawn from the member’s bill ballot last year. Yes God loves us all equally whether gay or straight but he does not in my view approve all social change. 
Although most who have written to me and presumably to other MPs from both sides of this debate—and as I mentioned earlier literally tens of thousands have done so—have been sincere in their views and respectful in the way they have expressed them a few have been aggressive insulting and though the irony appears to have escaped them far more bigoted than anyone I have heard arguing for the status quo. It is clear that some of the most extreme writers on both sides of the debate refuse to consider that the alternative view to their own could have any merit whatsoever. I do not agree with them. I gave an undertaking to consider as many submissions as fairly and as objectively as I could and I have done that. 
I have been moved by the experiences and deeply held convictions of many who have made submissions to the select committee and who have contacted me on both sides of the debate. In particular I acknowledge the distress of gay friends and constituents and others who have insisted very persuasively that being gay is not a choice and that they continue to feel that society treats them as inferior because of their orientation. I accept the former conclusion and I very much regret that the latter is still true for many—I hope we will be able to move away from that. But to those who have dismissed my religious beliefs as worthless—and some have—or who have insisted that I could easily change those beliefs and who have insisted that my support for the long-held definition of “marriage” means that I must be a bigot who is antagonistic to those who are campaigning for the changes and that I must also be homophobic I say that those are not my views and I am not that person. 
As I said I would have welcomed debate on the merits of several compromises. I hope we may still be able to consider some if as expected this bill progresses tonight to its Committee stage. I pray that God’s will be done.