Young Jonathan: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in this debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It is not often that debates in this House and around this country engage the hearts and minds in the way that this debate has. I believe it is because it touches issues deep within the core of people’s being. It is to do with our most important relationship. It is to do with family. It is to do with children. It is to do with all the important things that we do everything else for.Here we are in this powerful expression of the democratic process with different views on an issue with so many emotions. I believe that in this debate it is not as clear as many people think. I think that there are views and issues that many people New Zealanders in our communities are struggling with are wondering about and they are looking to this House tonight. I believe that our society is probably more divided than this House is on this issue.Everyone has a right to their view a right to express it a right to agree or to disagree and I hope in a civil society a right to be respected because of or despite their view. It is appropriate that diverse opinions be expressed in this House tonight. In this House disagreement is the air we breathe but it is how we disagree that is important and by and large this debate has been calmer than many other debates in this House.Tonight I expect that this bill will pass despite my vote which some will know has not supported its transition through the House thus far. For a long time now I have been very supportive of civil unions for all the reasons that people are perhaps now applying to the marriage debate. I can empathise with how a couple may want to have the legal recognition or some institutional formality or support for their relationship to give them that sense of perhaps even permanence it may bring or support. And on the occasion of that is a celebration that a wedding can bring. I believe that everybody wants to celebrate their relationships. Your relationship is your business and I have been happy to support that.I think I was happy when the Civil Union Bill came through because in a sense it was a new legal recognition that was a mirror of marriage but it also maintained the age-old institution of marriage. I do think that in societies traditions are important and have a place. A tradition is a convention a belief or a behaviour that stands the test of time. A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily because it is the touchstone of a value that perhaps younger minds may not fully understand yet enter into because it is there. Traditions are what we use to guide people I believe into the things of life that have been proven to work. Those might be the very sentiments while we are debating this bill.But what we are debating I believe is not necessarily about love because love is not legislated. I loved that campaign; I thought it was pretty good Grant. It was a great idea about legalising love but I do not know whether you can do that. I know the angle you are taking I know what you are talking about but I think the human heart is too rampant and too romantic to be contained and boxed and denied. I believe that people will pursue that which brings them meaning and fulfilment in life. Essentially the value of marriage which this society upholds is that you become my one and only and we commit to the best of our ability to make this an exclusive and permanent relationship. That is the reason why I supported civil unions because I believe that in that sense—and I know that perhaps many people say we need to move on—there is a sense of recognition exclusivity and permanence that comes to relationships. My view is that history and tradition have invested significant meaning into the term “marriage” and I believe that we need to retain its present definition. Thank you.