United Future
Gordon Copeland

Gordon Copeland's view on the Relationships Bill

It then treats those relationships as equivalent for the purposes of pensions, social security, taxation, next of kin and a fairly long list of other entitlements and responsibilities.

It is important to note that, unlike civil unions, it makes no moral judgement about those relationships themselves but concentrates solely on ensuring that all are treated equally before the law without discrimination.

Shortly after I was elected to Parliament I was approached by a constituent who pointed out that the NZ Super entitlements discriminate against married couples, and all of us have probably heard of cases where de facto or homosexual couples each draw Super  at the single person rate.  This bill ends that discrimination.

I want to point out however that this bill will still eliminate all unjust discrimination without the inclusion of civil unions and for that reason I will vote against the bill on its second and subsequent readings if references to civil unions remain.

This bill highlights the flawed and unnecessary nature of the Civil Union Bill.  It gives the lie to claims that civil unions are about removing discrimination.  They are not.

This bill therefore throws into vivid relief the true intention of the Civil Union Bill, namely the claim that marriage and civil unions are moral equivalents.  They are not.

If you ask on what authority I make that statement I reply as follows; on the basis of the more than 3 billion people worldwide  who follow the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths.  The reality is  that Parliament did not invent marriage – indeed it predates the existence of the state and stretches back to the beginning of human history.  It is found in virtually every culture and religion known to mankind.

Marriage flows from the sexual and reproductive design of men and women.  Regardless of whether the marriage is civil or religious it is always, for that reason, moral.

I now in my turn ask on what authority do those Members of this House who claim moral equivalence between marriage on the one hand and de facto same sex relationships on the other rely?  In truth they have none.  Or have we now reached the stage where in direct opposition to millennia of moral teaching Parliament itself takes on the task of declaring what is plainly immoral?  If so I say we have strayed outside of the authority vested in us by the people – which is to uphold, advance  and pass on to successive generations the moral as well as the social, environmental and economic  welfare of our nation.

In my view it has been a political sophistry to twin these two bills – an attempt to confuse and disguise that reality  - but I hope the truth is now revealed for all to see.

Let us by all means send this bill to select committee but only on the clear understanding that we see it back here with all references to civil unions deleted.