Ardern Jacinda: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9026. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 This is the first and only speech that I will make on this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Although I sat through all the stages I have never felt like it was my place to take a speaking slot. There are just too many other people in this House who have played a far greater role or who are more personally affected by it than I. But does that not say something in and of itself—the fact that whether this bill passes or not my rights and my privileges as a heterosexual woman will continue. I can choose to marry or not. I can choose to enter a civil union or not. I am not the one who has experienced limitations on my rights or freedoms and yet here I am privileged enough to have a vote to determine whether that right should be extended to others. And when it comes to whether or not that right should be granted for me there is no question. The answer has always been yes. 
I say “always” for a reason. Debates of conscience such as these do tend to lead to questions over an individual member of Parliament’s set of values. I understand the natural curiosity that comes around our religious upbringings. They help people understand how we have come to a position or they simply cause to confuse. My story probably lends itself more to the latter. I was reminded of it recently while cleaning out some old university papers. I stumbled across an essay I had written for a comparative policy class in roughly the year 2000 arguing the case for civil unions. This was a fairly unremarkable thing—I was after all a staunch member of the Labour Party. But I was also at that time a member of the Mormon Church. It is fair to say that I know what cognitive dissonance feels like. When I started campaigning for civil unions some time later I decided that I could not sustain such competing value sets any longer and I left the Church. 
I understand the internal battle that some members in this House have shared during the course of this debate but I can honestly say that my battle was never over choosing equality or not but rather how to deal with the fact that the values of equality and fairness were in fact the only things I never ever doubted. 
Although I am no longer a member of the Mormon Church I greatly respect it and I respect its members. I also respect their right to choose how marriage is expressed within their religion and therefore whom they perform marriages on behalf of. I would not support any part of a bill that removed that freedom from them. This Parliament is giving the assurance to such religious institutions today that this protection exists. 
Although section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 already states that “A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.” the Government Administration Committee went even further with drafting that assures that “no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body” and “no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize a marriage by an approved organisation is obliged to solemnize if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs …”. Not only does the law contain this protection;  
Hansard 
 the record of this Parliament will record it also. Put simply the requests laid out for us by institutions like the Mormon Church have been heard and have been met within the bill. No amendment is required. 
I could not end my small contribution to this debate without acknowledging the roles of those who have paved the way for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill: Fran Wilde with homosexual law reform Tim Barnett with civil unions and of course Louisa Wall for marriage equality. But behind each of these sat community members who have fought hard with pride and in spite of personal anguish and attacks to get us where we are today and they deserve our thanks. 
In 1948 my great-uncle was imprisoned for no other reason than his sexuality. He was in a State prison for 3 years for what was then considered to be a crime. Although in the eyes of the law we no longer criminalise the expression of someone’s sexuality I do not believe we will have a fully inclusive society until we remove all forms of discrimination be they physical bars or the stigma imposed by legal differentiation. That is why today I cast my vote on behalf of queer and questioning youth on behalf of my friends and on behalf of my uncle.