Ross Jami-Lee: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9485. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I thank my colleague Maurice Williamson for allowing me to share his time in the third reading debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Tonight I am voting for love for equality for opportunity and most of all for freedom. I am voting tonight to give all New Zealanders the same opportunity that I had when I married my wife: the freedom to marry the person I love. It is a very simple concept but one that has been denied to so many people for so long.We are all fortunate that we sit in this House of Representatives and have a democracy that values individual freedoms and individual rights a democracy that values New Zealanders having the ability to determine for themselves what they do with their own lives. Many arguments can be made both for and against same-sex marriage but when I was considering how I should vote on this issue the question was never why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; the question was always why on earth they should not be allowed to marry and that I cannot explain.I cannot explain why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. It just seems daft to me that we could deny two people the right to marry simply because they love someone who is of the same gender. I have yet to hear anyone put forward a rational and a principled reason why it is necessary to deny two people the right to marry simply because of their sexual orientation. It is wrong.Recently on a local Botany Facebook website a constituent made the wise observation that “Marriage is about love. Love between two men or two women is equal to the love of a man and a woman and therefore they should have equal rights.” and that is what it all boils down to. No one needs to be dismayed or disappointed because two loving people might soon be able to get married. No one needs to feel threatened or saddened because something that is different and something they are not used to might take place around them. The reality is that unless you are in a same-sex relationship andconsidering getting married you are not affected by this bill in any way at all. Nobody gets hurt when gay couples say they are married but gay couples who do want to get married are harmed when they are arbitrarily stopped by the State from doing so and from expressing their love in the way that they want to.This also is not an issue that should be a referendum issue. I do not fear a referendum in any way; I simply do not believe that it is right to determine an issue that affects only minorities by way of a referendum. If that was the case I doubt that New Zealand would have given women the right to vote when it did that this country would have legalised abortion when it did or that this country would have decriminalised sex between two consenting males when it did. Minority rights issues are not referendum issues.I want to briefly talk also about the question of children because it is a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know that it is a touchy subject but as someone who actually grew up without a mother and without a father I think I am somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life but those influences do not necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What is most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What is most important is that the people who are raising that child give them a home that is safe warm educating and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same-sex marriage then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved and cared-for child.The time for this legislation has come. I believe that the author of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill Louisa Wall and the Government Administration Committee have arrived at a sensible point—the sensible point where marriage equality will soon be extended to all New Zealanders in a way that in no way impacts on the rights and freedoms of anyone else. Tonight Parliament is doing absolutely the right thing and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.