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:4913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I move  
That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.  
I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill before the House the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill which seeks to define marriage as between two people regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. It is generally known as the bill that will enable marriage equality between consenting adults underpinned by principles of love fairness and equality of opportunity for all New Zealand citizens. The bill has attracted passionate reactions from a number of quarters and the result of that passion has seen statements that reflect a diversity of opinions across our society. This ability to engage and to make a statement and to have a say about this issue is fundamental. I want to highlight that this is an important aspect of a modern democratic society.  
The starting point for this bill rests with our role on the international stage. In 1944 when the founding document of the United Nations the United Nations Charter was being developed New Zealand pushed for a stronger focus on human rights and in 1948 we again played an important and effective role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We saw the need for such a declaration and participated in its instigation and development. This is not surprising given that we led the world in enabling women to have the right to vote. We did that in 1893 and it took the United States another 27 years to reach that same point.  
That sexual orientation is a ground of unlawful discrimination is not a matter of dispute. In 1993 we as a country amended the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 to outlaw discrimination on a wider variety of grounds including sexual orientation. This is what we must always remember when we discuss this issue. This issue will make all citizens and people of New Zealand equal under the law given that currently same-gender couples cannot obtain a marriage licence from the State.  
What my bill does not do is require any person or Church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a Church has. Section 29 of the Marriage Act remains in place and makes it clear that once a marriage licence is obtained by a couple it does not oblige a minister or celebrant to marry that couple. That is the situation now and nothing will change. Because we have freedom of religion in New Zealand no religious body is bound to marry a couple if that marriage is at odds with its religious belief. For Churches and religious institutions such discrimination would be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 based on the right to freedom of religion—specifically the manifestation of religion and belief—under section 15 of that Act.  
It is the State’s role to uphold our laws and our international obligations and to ensure that everyone has equality under the law. The Church can discriminate but the State should not and cannot. We as parliamentarians belong to the only institution in New Zealand—our Parliament—that makes our laws and upholds not only these laws but our international obligations as well. It is not the State’s role to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. We recognised that as a country in 1986 when we decriminalised homosexual acts. Nor is it the State’s role to judge the marriages of its citizens. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation in accordance with the marriage laws of the State.  
Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has over that time changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero. The Catholic Church initially saw the institution of marriage as tainted and undesirable and advocated chastity and celibacy. Once the Church adopted and adapted marriage it was for life. It could not be dissolved. A married woman assumed the identity of her husband and he received all her property. By marriage the legal doctrine of coverture meant a woman had no legal status. She could not own property enter into contracts earn money or obtain an education without her husband’s consent.  
The Church and State have at different times refused to marry people who have been divorced refused to marry people of different faiths and refused to marry people of different races. Those restrictions have changed because they were not fair and just.  
Women were not able to be guardians of their children upon a divorce or separation. A law was needed to change that. For women to own property required law changes as recently as 1884. A woman was able to obtain a divorce from her husband only if there was another cause alongside adultery such as extreme cruelty desertion or incest. A man however could obtain a divorce immediately on the basis of his wife’s adultery.  
These are all part of the historical matrix that is marriage. Thankfully the need to change some of the laws has been recognised and implemented. With women obtaining the right to vote and finally having legal status the greatest transformation of marriage began. There are a number of shocking historical facts that surround this subject and we baulk at how in a civilised society they could happen. 
 Today is the time to open the institution of marriage to all people who are eligible. There is no reasonable ground on which the State should deny any citizen the right to enter the institution of marriage if he or she chooses. That is not the process of inclusion. 
To any person concerned about their own beliefs and how they wish to celebrate marriage it is important to always remember that this bill allows a couple to only obtain a marriage licence. It does not mean that a minister or celebrant must marry the couple. Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 says that and this will not change. 
Some people have suggested that the Church cannot share its view about marriage because of section 56 of the Marriage Act. Section 56 says that a person cannot state that another person’s marriage is not legal. That does not concern the general view of marriage but is directed to an individual and the reality is that once sanctioned by law the marriage is legal and no Church person should be stating otherwise. 
I want to highlight two specific consequences if my bill becomes law. Under section 3 of our current Adoption Act a joint application to adopt can be made by only spouses or the birth parent and his or her spouse. A spouse is a marital partner so if you are married you are spouses. Therefore under the current wording of the Adoption Act same-sex marital partners as spouses would be able to make a joint application to adopt. There are shortcomings in our current Adoption Act and the Care of Children Law Reform Bill which is also in the ballot would be unaffected by this bill. 
Also an obvious consequential amendment is to section 30(2) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995. This provision limits a trans person who is married and who gets a Family Court declaration under section 28 of this Act to change their sex details from having those details amended on a birth certificate. This section should be deleted. A marriage stood strong through the significant change of one partner transitioning from one sex to another should remain recognised under New Zealand law. 
How any person’s marriage is performed has never been the State’s business. Whether it be cultural religious or civil it is the decision for the couple and their whanau. What this bill will do is enable that decision to be made and for all people to have the same choices about how they make a commitment to one another. Where it requires a licence the State should not exclude any citizen who is otherwise eligible. To exclude two people from obtaining a marriage licence based on their sexual orientation and gender identity is not tolerable. We have an opportunity as a Parliament to rectify this discriminatory unequal and unfair application of the law. Kia ora. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I put the question and call the next speaker I must remind our guests in the gallery that they cannot take part in any proceedings in the House much as they may wish to. Visitors in the gallery cannot applaud or express any view on the debate in the House. I apologise for that but those are the rules of the House.