Hague Kevin: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by echoing the Hon Ruth Dyson and the Hon Trevor Mallard in expressing my appreciation of the officials who worked so hard servicing the needs of the Government Administration Committee and also to all of those members who sat on the select committee with me both those who favour the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and those who oppose it. I believe they all did their job sincerely and well. I particularly praise the job that was done by the Hon Ruth Dyson in the chair—and indeed by Chris Auchinvole who on occasion was also in the chair—in creating a culture in the select committee hearings of respect and integrity. 
Some of the submissions that we heard from people speaking in favour of the bill were hard to listen to. They shared with the committee their own stories of the damage that prejudice and discrimination had brought them—friends lost to suicide their own self-harm depression and isolation—and they told us also about their love. It was wonderful to have lesbian gay transgendered and bisexual people come to the committee and speak about the people they love their hopes for the future and the powerful difference this bill will make in their lives. 
Some people came with their partner. On one occasion a young woman gave her submission with her partner her parents her sisters and one of her sister’s fiancé. Heterosexual people and couples came and told us how they felt about marriage not being available to their gay friends. Parents came; children came. They spoke about love and about belonging; that the institutions of a society like marriage form a kind of rope that binds society together across the generations and through history. Not all of us want to get married but what we heard on the committee was a strong yearning for respect for belonging and to add our strands to that rope. 
 It was striking that the submissions for the bill came from a huge range of organisations and individuals offering an array of different perspectives—personal religious health legal and human rights were just some of those. By way of contrast submissions opposed to the bill although also sincere and strongly held represented typically quite a narrow range of views and one particular perspective. Almost all of the submissions opposed to the bill came from a religious perspective. Most of them reflected the submission guide that had been circulated by a particular lobby group often verbatim—including the errors. 
I want to make two broad generalisations about the debate overall. Firstly from the word go Louisa Wall and those of us who have been working for this bill have been absolutely clear that we have no wish to restrict the religious freedom of others. We know that some churches still had some doubt about that but the select committee rather than getting bogged down in whether their doubts had any validity has moved to put the matter beyond doubt. The existing relationship between church and State has been preserved with no church required to do or to say anything differently. Although the church voice that has been heard loudest has been one opposed to the bill all the while there have been faiths denominations and congregations within denominations who wished to be able to conduct same-sex marriages and whose freedom of religion has been constrained by the existing law. Passing this bill into law will extend religious freedoms and will not restrict them in any way. 
The second general point I want to make is that as I read the submissions I was more and more struck by the difference in world view they represented. Those in favour of the bill typically see New Zealand as a pluralistic society in which this Parliament needs to create a framework that supports and provides for a multiplicity of cultures beliefs and value systems. By way of contrast those opposed to the bill believe that this Parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour that conforms to a single or very tightly restricted set of beliefs and values based on their own religious belief. They believe all must comply with this behaviour code regardless of whether or not they share the beliefs on which it is based. 
We heard a lot about tradition. Those opposed said that the institution of marriage should not be changed because of tradition. Those who support the bill showed that progress can occur only by changing historical practices. As Chris Auchinvole has so ably demonstrated this has been the case with marriage many times over. This was graphically illustrated by so many of the arguments against this bill being precisely those that were used in the United States to try to justify continuing bans on interracial marriage: tradition slippery slope God’s will—all the same arguments. The landmark Supreme Court case to finally end such bans in the United States was  
Loving v Virginia 
—kind of ironic—in 1967 although the last of those laws was removed in Alabama only in the year 2000. Mildred a black woman and Richard a white man fought a 9-year battle to have their marriage recognised in their home state. 
In 2007 then aged 68 a year before her death Mildred Loving made a very rare statement about same-sex marriage delivered on the 40th anniversary of the historic decision: “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love our right to marry and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans no matter their race [no matter their sex] no matter their sexual orientation should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love the commitment the fairness and the family that so many people black or white young or old gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.” It is time.