Wall Louisa: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora ano. In this closing reply I would like to acknowledge that the fight for all New Zealanders to be recognised as equal citizens under the law is one that has been fought in Aotearoa for around 50 years. To that end I wish to acknowledge two women who are here tonight who were the litigants in the  
Quilter 
 case that brought this issue to the fore and recognised that the changes necessary to bring about equality were matters for Parliament. JoolsJoslin and Jenny Rowan applied for a marriage licence in 1995 almost 10 years after homosexual law reform and were denied. They and two other couples challenged that action through the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They then took the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Committee to test that denial against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Incrementally their courage in challenging the discriminatory implementation of the provisions in the Marriage Act set the platform for the consideration of this bill tonight. 
I want to acknowledge all people involved in the campaign for marriage equality. They are people from across the political spectrum representing rainbow groups queer-straight alliance groups human rights advocates and groups our religious leadership and communities and many others who are fighting for legalised love and those who have blogged those who have shared their stories in the media and those who have led meetings and discussions in our families and communities—thank you for your solidarity in advancing the rights of other New Zealanders and proud citizens of our country. I specifically want to acknowledge our Pacific and ethnic communities. I mean no disrespect to you. Your beliefs and values and those of your heritage countries of origin are valid. 
The purpose and intent of this bill is very clear. It means that the law and the social and civil institutions that that law governs apply equally to everyone. It means that a couple who so choose can apply for and receive a marriage licence from the State. What it does not do is affect a person’s own beliefs about marriage. The fact that a couple wants to make a commitment to each other by marriage is a cause for celebration and it can only benefit our society and families as a whole. Marginalising and discriminating against particular sectors does not benefit society and families. It is a simple choice. Do we support discriminatory laws or not? I know I do not and hopefully that is true of most of the members of this House. 
History tells us that the struggles of the gay community as with any minority have often been cruel. What has been heartening in this discussion has been the positive response from younger people across the board. It is a generational issue but it is also an issue about personal experience and the fact that when you have a friend or a whanau member who is gay you do not want them to suffer or have fewer rights than you. That is not fair or just. 
Equality for all New Zealand citizens under the law is not a moral issue. It is an issue of the inherent equal value and worth of every New Zealand citizen in a modern democratic society. The State currently discriminates. That is not fair or just. We should be valuing and including all members of our society. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a passport. If you are a New Zealand citizen fill in the forms correctly meet the criteria that apply to all people and pay the fee you will get one. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a driver’s licence. If you are a New Zealand citizen fill in the forms correctly meet the criteria that all people must meet and pay the fee you will get one. So why do we tolerate the State not giving New Zealand citizens a marriage licence based purely on their sexual orientation and gender identity? 
We know why many of the churches do not support this bill. It is fundamentally because their first principle is that homosexuals are sinners and homosexuality is a sin. But in New Zealand there is a clear and transparent separation of Church and State. It is about time that that separation was recognised within the context of marriage in New Zealand and in the State’s role in the Marriage Act through the issuing of a marriage licence. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa.