Wall Louisa: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8523. 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 second time 
. In this second reading debate I want to focus on value—the value the regard the importance or preciousness that every person should feel as a New Zealand citizen. During the debate on this bill a number of views have been expressed about a person’s value. I have been moved by the depth of feeling of those affected by the bill—those who will be able to choose whether they access a social institution they are currently prohibited from accessing for no reason other than their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. The feeling of being excluded of being a second-class citizen and of being outside the normal parameters of society proliferate amongst our community but we are normal and we are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen. 
The issue of coming out of being true to who you are is difficult enough for any person. The discussion around this bill has emphasised how real the discrimination is. The agony and hardship that so many who have bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable but what is totally unacceptable is the State perpetuating that agony and hardship by not issuing marriage licences to loving consenting and eligible non-heterosexual couples. 
This bill is about marriage equality. It is not about gay marriage same-sex marriage or straight marriage; it is about marriage between two people. There is no distinction to be made—that is equality. Whether the form of that marriage is religious secular or cultural is a matter for the couple to determine. Denying marriage to a person is to devalue that person’s right to participate fully in all that life offers. It is essentially not recognising someone as a person. No State has the right to do that. To deny trans people intersex lesbian and gay people the right to marry is to deny them recognition as a person. 
Opponents to this bill are essentially asserting that non-heterosexuals are not equal people and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as other people. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when being sworn in as the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town in 1986: “A person is a person because he recognises others as persons.” Almost 20 years later in a sermon in London in 2004 Archbishop Tutu expressed his wish to reverse injustice by ending the persecution of people because of their sexual orientation which he described as every bit as unjust as that crime against humanity apartheid. He stated: “For me this struggle is a seamless robe. Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice. It is also a matter of love. Every human being is precious. We are all—all of us—part of God’s family. We all must be allowed to love each other with honour. Yet all over the world lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God. This must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.” 
Archbishop Tutu’s logic and reasoning is compelling. It is the same logic and reason that should guide us all in this House when we vote on this issue. To most people marriage is an institution characterised by positivity. It is about love commitment and family. No sector of society has the right to claim ownership of marriage and determine that their perception and practice of marriage is the only acceptable way. Marriage belongs to society as a whole and that requires the involvement of the whole of society. The role of the State in marriage is to issue to a licence to two people who love each other and want to commit to one another formally—that is what this bill does. 
To be valued for who we are is the bare minimum we should expect from others. It is the bare minimum we should expect from the State. For me it is what I would expect from a church but that will be a longer journey and one that each denomination and church community will determine in their own time. 
The State’s position is that all human beings are equal citizens and the law protects various aspects of a person’s identity including their sex sexual orientation age colour and race. These are fundamental aspects of our identity with which we are born. The Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act extends the protections beyond these innate aspects to matters of status and belief. 
I have always been clear that in pursuing marriage equality I will defend the rights of those in churches to practise their religion on terms that they consider reflect their beliefs. Freedom of religion is an individual right and I support the Government Administration Committee’s recommendation to strengthen Section 29 of the Marriage Act to make it clear that there is no compulsion for a minister to perform a marriage that he or she does not feel comfortable about. Section 29 protects all celebrants. Attempts by opponents in the last week to limit the protection only to those listed in the amendment are totally misleading. The select committee amendment in clause 5A is clear. The specific amendment that refers to organisational celebrants begins with the words “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1) …”. The general protection in Section 29 remains in place and applies to all celebrants. To read it in any other way is disingenuous. 
Exercising freedom of religion means religious groups view marriage as exclusive. That is the reality of freedom of religion and it is my intention to recognise that freedom and therefore allow that discrimination to continue for as long as religious leaders and specific denominations choose. But in return I would ask that churches consider the rights of the lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex community with love compassion and reason. My bill is one step and will allow members of the lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex community to participate in the civil and State institution of marriage. 
Some church leaders have embraced that step and I am hopeful that time will see a change in the attitude and practices of other church members. I do have hope that churches will move towards an inclusive approach to marriage. Last October the General Assembly of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church passed a motion opposing this bill but an attempt to pass a motion that their ministers could conduct a marriage only between a man and a woman was lost. That is a positive step and will allow ministers like Rev. Dr Margaret Mayman from St Andrews on the Terrace who submitted both personally and professionally to fulfil her desire to be able to offer same-sex couples the same option as different-sex couples—that is to marry or have a civil union. 
I want to recognise and thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have read and listened to the many submissions received. Their report is reasoned and compassionate in recognising the positions taken by those in favour and those against. 
In focusing on value I am drawn to the lyrics of American musician Ben Haggerty better known as Macklemore in his song “Same Love”: 
And I can’t change 
Even if I tried 
Even if I wanted to 
I can’t change 
In voting on this bill I hope the House will give a message to all young people: you do not have to change you can be who you are and we as a society will value who you are. Kia ora. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Order! Can I just remind members in the gallery that you are in Parliament and Parliament is here for the members of Parliament not for members in the gallery. There will be no comments at all.