Auchinvole Chris: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9502. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill I along with my fellow members of the Government Administration Committee discussed the submissions we received and how we approached the points raised. This is a process I believe in—a process of listening considering and reaching a conclusion based on persuasive argument rather than personal reactive response. This process is over. Now it is time for us as a Parliament to cast our final votes on this bill and allow our part in this debate to come to an end. As politicians we are here to legislate but it is only society that can determine how decisions made by this Parliament affect and are absorbed into our social mores. As the former Republican governor and current United States Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman wrote in an article outlining the conservative support for same-sex marriage: “Marriage is not an issue that people rationalise through the abstract lens of the law;”.This debate that we have been engaged in has highlighted a divide in opinion amongst this nation between young and old between secular and spiritual and even between members of the same faith and the same family. This type of divide is not new nor should it be something that we avoid or dismiss. We have faced many issues ofconscience in our nation’s relatively short history. I think we have grown stronger by facing them together not always as adversaries but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation that often gives fine examples to the rest of the world. It is because of this shared history that I have the faith that we can seize this opportunity to have discussions around the issues raised by this bill in our homes our churches and everywhere honest thoughtful debate is respected.This bill is not a panacea but it is an opportunity. If it is to pass—and we should pass this bill—that is just the beginning of a change process and I think everyone will acknowledge that. It is just a beginning. As an older person I would ask that the younger generation—epitomised of course in my colleague Nikki Kaye—show some patience and consideration for those of my generation who will need time to adjust to a change that will be very very new to us. By the same token we cannot move forward as a nation if we older ones ignore or reject the heartfelt pleas for respect by the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community and the younger brigade. We need their acceptance just as they are entitled to our acceptance.These impassioned pleas come through loud and clear when you examine the submission process. There were stories of children too scared to talk to their parents about their sexuality for fear of punishment or worse for fear of total rejection. We may not always agree with our children’s decisions and as any parent will tell you it is our job to worry but to create an environment where your child cannot even talk to you about the issues affecting their life is unconscionable.There are those on both sides of the bill who concentrated on their own point of view to the neglect of any consideration of other points of view. It is necessary if this bill passes—and we should pass this bill—for groups to reconsider individual standpoints. I feel particularly in respect of the Churches that there is a need to pick up the somewhat tattered and torn banner. The banner of Christian love is somewhat tarnished but if it is picked up with hands of every generation of whatever ethnicity or gender identity that human bodies individually glory in then their spirits can restitch restore and make the banner resplendent and to God be the glory. Thank you.