Dyson Ruth: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8527. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson can I thank you very much for that excellent choice in the fierce competition that there is on taking a call on this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I was very privileged to chair the Government Administration Committee which considered this bill and therefore I am particularly pleased to be able to take a call. Normally at this stage of the debate I would take a 10-minute call but out of respect to the number of people to whom we cannot refer I would like the vote taken before 10 o’clock tonight so I am going to take shorter time than I would like to and certainly say fewer things than I would like to as well because this is a really important issue for many people. 
I want to acknowledge all the committee members who sat on the consideration of the bill those who were for the bill and those who were against. I think that everyone tried really hard on what is for most people an emotive issue to be respectful and tolerant of people who disagreed with their view and I want to thank the committee members for doing that. We were nearly 100 percent successful in that attempt. Likewise for the submitters. People were very nervous very anxious and very passionate but again almost without exception they presented their views in an inoffensive and respectful manner. 
I want to pay particular tribute to all the submitters but particularly the young gay and lesbian submitters for whom it must have been a very big and courageous step to talk about their own lives in front of people whom they did not know—people who as politicians make an art form out of intimidating people. We tried not to be intimidating but nevertheless I am sure it was a very big step particularly for those young people. People who talked about how they realised their sexual orientation made them different from their family members from other people at school or from people in their workplace many of whom then tried to deny their sexual orientation as a result who lived their life as a lie. People who were subjected to being bullied who felt isolated or rejected by their family who never felt part of the community or society that we all value so much. 
For those people this is not going to change their world. This is not going to overnight change New Zealand into a completely tolerant and inclusive society but it will be a lawful recognition of the value of their loving relationships and for that reason alone I would support the bill. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law regardless of the sexual orientation of the people who love. 
I want to just briefly talk about a frustration I have. They say a frustration shared is a frustration that more people are frustrated about so let me do that tonight. The changes that we have made to section 29 of the Marriage Act which my colleague Louisa Wall has referred to are specifically designed to ensure that religious freedoms are not trampled on by the Marriage Act including this amendment which I hope we progress tonight. We accept that religious freedom should continue in New Zealand. We received advice we debated about it we thought about it and we took the best advice possible. I would be prepared to be a witness for a reformist minister in court and say that he has the right to deny a same-sex couple solemnisation of their wedding—should any same-sex couple want to ask a reformist minister to solemnise their wedding. 
We also as part of the select committee process decided to repeal section 56 and I would recommend that people read that. We thought the language of the law was outdated. We do not propose though that this be an opportunity for people to denigrate other people’s relationships. We just thought that this was an old-fashioned bit of legislation. 
The other bit of misinformation that I deeply resent and regret that is being put about by some opponents—and I say “some” because I know that many opponents have debated this issue on facts—is that we have taken out any references to husband and wife or gender-specific terms in the law. Our specific direction to the officials was to not do that. Frankly I think it would not impact on many people. I will not stop calling my husband my husband actually regardless of what the law says. But we specifically said we wanted the law to recognise what people practised and wanted to do in our country and the only references we have changed are those that were totally incomprehensible if we left the language as it was. So people who say we have gender-neutered the language are misinforming people and they should be told to read the report from the select committee and read the amendment. 
I am a very very happily married heterosexual woman. I fail to see how enabling any other person in our country to have the opportunity to share in the joy and responsibility of marriage could harm anyone but I am very able to see how much that could benefit the strength of our families and our communities. I am delighted with this legislation. I am very proud of the way the select committee worked on it. I know there were many submitters who did not have the opportunity to be heard. We read their submissions. We value their input. Those who were heard had a powerful impact on us. I think it has been a very good process and one that I am very pleased to support.