Effect on New Zealand Society and Significance to New Zealand - Homosexual Law Reform ProtestNew Zealand 1986 Effect on New Zealand Society and Significance to New Zealand EFFECTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LAW REFORM ON SOCIETY AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EVENT TO NEW ZEALAND The Homosexual Law Reform in 1986 had significant impacts on people during and after the campaign. Although the successful campaign was a significant positive effect and "as happy an ending as you get in real life," according to one person involved, for activists the campaign for law reform was "sixteen months of hard, intensely stimulating work, physical and nervous exhaustion, and a certain amount of pure terror... Which had its casualties along the way." (Moon, Paul, Turning Points, Events That Changed the Course of New Zealand History, 2013) Homosexuality was the subject on an intense debate and social polarisation, where injusticess were likely to become violent, with numerous peoples lives being destroyed by severe head injuries. Politicians also incurred minor impacts during the campaign as they were indirectly affected. Many did not want to appear too for or against the issue in fear of losing support, which would effect them in future years.

A positive social impact of the decriminalisation of homosexuality was that it gave the younger generation a chance to embrace liberation through self discovery and freedom of expression. This resulted in many people fostering an open desire of acceptance for diversity in relation to how people lived their lives. Over time, this event has affected many people's lives. In they years prior to the law reform in 1986, homosexuals were persecuted and marginalised in communities when they were open about their sexuality. The law reform campaign gave homosexuals a voice, a universal aim in society that they ultimately achieved, even though two contrasting factions of law reform were evident. The advances in gaining full equality for homosexuals are evident in society through the subsequent changed in government policy, especially the most recent legalisation of gay marriage in New Zealand. These political advancements have encouraged a societal attitudinal change which has occurred in New Zealand as people are now more willing to accept the minorities in society as it is no longer common or acceptable to discriminate someone based on their sexuality. This is also aligned with the subsequent Human Rights Act of 1993, where a clause for homosexuality was added as a consolidation and amendment of the Human Rights Commission Act of 1977.

The Homosexual Law Reform Bill was a milestone for the gay rights campaign as it caused a significant cultural shift in New Zealand. In the short-term change was not accepted by everyone. On the 11th September 1986, just two months after the passing of the bill, the Wellington premises of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Resource Centre was destroyed in an arson attack. The attackers wrote the word 'FAG' on the wall to make it clear that it was a homophobic attack. This shows that many people in society still held a firm grip of their permissive attitudes towards sexuality. This made it clear that the divide in society caused by the opposing views on the Homosexual Law Reform were still apparent. This is evident in the surveys conducted in 1989, three years after the passage of the bill outlining the discrimination against homosexuals in society, which revealed that 77 per cent claimed that they had hidden their sexual orientation during their employment. The Homosexual Law Reform Act did not bring about an increase in the number of gay people in the country or lead to public acts of gay sex. This was because in the short term the majority of public opinion had not changed.

This is reflected in one woman's story she revealed ten years after the passage of the Act, that said, "Like a lot of emancipatory legislation this act might have entrenched my legal rights but it didn't make it any easier for me in my community." (Moon, Paul, Turning Points, Events That Changed the Course of New Zealand History, 2013) This shows that although the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was a significant result for homosexuals, their aim of social revolutionary change needed to be achieved in order for them to feel comfortable in society. However, in the long term the Homosexual Law Reform lead to a transformation of an innumerable amount of aspects in economic and cultural life, altering not only the law but individual and collective sensibilities. Acceptance of gay people and the removal of disgraces associated with homosexuality were gradual, which is evident in a further survey conducted in 1992 that reflected how society's attitudes to homosexuality had changed as 86 per cent felt employers should not have the right to dismiss an employee simply because they were gay and 85 per cent had no objections to working with someone gay.

Keith Marshall's statement that he, "can't pick out gays now" and believes that, "this shows how much things have changed and become blurred," (Gearing, Nigel, Emerging Tribe: Gay Culture in New Zealand in the 1990s, 1997) also reflects how gay people have become an accepted part in society and New Zealand's growing diversity. Ultimately as a result of the protests that were a major factor in the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform in 1986, a group in New Zealand who had been socially ostracised and legally discriminated against was slowly accepted by a growing number of people. The trend of equality over time can be seen through the change in public opinion and government legislation. New Zealand has come a long way in regard to equality since its beginning under the influence of the British Empire. In previous years, public opinion regarded homosexuality as immoral, and therefore it was made illegal by the government, mostly due to misconceptions about homosexuality. The negative public opinion of homosexuality at the time in New Zealand was mostly reinforced by religion, with many people also associating it with paedophilia.

This gave a profoundly negative connotation to the term homosexuality, and therefore the belief that if homosexuality was legalised, it would be the first step to also legalising paedophilia, was held by many conservatives. However as new information about sexuality was established, coupled with the decrease of religion as a key influence in the decisions of people in society that helped to bring about law reform, homosexuality started to become more tolerated in New Zealand. Therefore, more people started to promote the equal rights of homosexuals, as they were seen as no different from heterosexuals. People who originally opposed the law reform also began to acknowledge the positive impacts it had on society, such as, Graeme Lee who agreed that, "The passage of that Bill has had very deep impacts in terms of liberalisation of attitudes towards homosexual activities in that nation." This is significant as it shows that not only the general publics view changed, but also key opponents of the law reform were enlightened by the other side of the debate, which gives weight to the fact the the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 was a significant event.

This event has increased in significance as the debate brought a collapse in the nation's moral order which in turn enabled the law to align itself with the social expectations of the time. It has also brought about a change in the law, and a change in perceptions that has made it easier to be gay or lesbian in today's society that it was previously, showing the greater acceptance of diversity in New Zealand society. Although decriminalisation was successful in 1986, the Homosexual Law Reform Act failed to change Human Rights to include sexuality as a code against discrimination, which meant that the issue was left unresolved. In order to change this to included the protection from discrimination on the basis of sexuality, new wave protests took place in the 1990s, which can be seen as a long term consequence. Activists presented the issue as being one of health and equality, stating that homosexuals were members included in society who suffered form discrimination. The Human Rights issue was campaigned as one of civil rights and acceptance of all within society, with campaigners also addressing the issue that the discrimination towards gay and lesbian people was one of the causes for the high suicidal rate within New Zealand.

They emphasised that when acceptance of all sexuality was stronger within society youth self esteem would increase, which would lower the rate of suicide. Opposition to the law change carried similar perspectives to those who opposed the law reform, believing that the law change would cause AIDS to spread further then it already has. Groups such as the CCC and Promotion of Community Standards (SPCS) wrote letters to editors of magazines and newspapers using biblical morals to define why the law should not be changed. The extreme views of MPs such as John Banks who believed that New Zealand would end up with, “Policemen walking around wearing lipstick and pantyhose,” (Coutts, Brent & Fitness, Nicholas, Protest in New Zealand, 2013) which showed that gay men and lesbians did need protection against prejudice and discrimination. MP Katherine O’Regan proposed amendments to the Human Rights Act in 1993, which was passed at its third reading, by 60 to 4, becoming law on the 1st February 1994. This meant that for the first time, New Zealand mentioned a sexual category, outlawing discrimination on basis of heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation.

This Bill came into power by two thirds of Parliament voting for it in comparison to the narrower victory in 1986, which shows that a societal attitudinal change occurred between 1986-1992. Sexuality was now considered to be a human right by a large majority of New Zealanders. The Human Rights Act had a huge effect on New Zealand society, as it was finally illegal to discriminate based on ones’ sexuality. In 2004 the Civil Union Act was passed, which created legal partnerships for both different sex, and same sex couples, with many of the same provisions as marriage. The act was another consequence of the law reform as it was the beginning of homosexuals gaining further equal rights to heterosexual couples and others within society. Opposition to the civil union act was led by the Destiny Church who were unsettled by moral changes occurring in society protested by carrying out marches. Despite the opposition, the Civil Union act was passed into law as a result of the great the strength behind those who protested in favour of the act. This showed the shift is social attitudes as many people from different groups within society were becoming more accepting of homosexuals as they believed in equality for gay and lesbian couples to enter a relationship with similarities to marriage.

This is reflected in Government Minister David Benson-Pope’s statement that, “The civil union will be a new legal entity, designed to reflect the diversity of New Zealand society and people’s personal choices about their relationships in the 21st century.” (Gearing, Nigel, Emerging Tribe: Gay Culture in New Zealand in the 1990s, 1997) The Act was seen as the next step in gay and lesbian rights after the law reform and human rights act and was a way to improve the further acceptance of homosexuals in New Zealand society The most current improvement to homosexual equality was the passing of the same sex marriage law, which was a consequence on the homosexual law reform and can be seen as on of the most successive campaigns to date. On the 14th of May 2012, Labour Party MP Louisa Wall introduced The Marriage Amendment Bill as a private member’s bill, which would allow same sex couples to marry. On the 17th April 2013, the bill passed the final reading with a resounding 77 to 44 vote. While Family First NZ called this ‘an arrogant act of cultural vandalism,’ there was huge celebration that now same sex couples could marry.

The bill received Royal Assent from the Governor-General on the 19th April 2013, and took effect on 19th August 2013. This was seen as an event of huge significance to New Zealanders, as the historical trend of advocation for human rights continued. As Louisa Wall said after hearing result of the Bill, “It shows we are building on our human rights tradition as a country.” (Carlyon, Jenny and Morrow, Diana, Changing Times, New Zealand Since 1945, 2013) Starting with the campaign for the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, the Human Rights Act of 1993, the Civil Union Act of 1994, and then the Marriage Amendment Bill of 2013, it is evident New Zealand has had a strong history of fighting for equality. The historical significance of the most recent Marriage Amendment Bill has been extremely strong. New Zealand was the first country in Oceania, and the fifteenth overall country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

However, this Marriage Amendment Bill would never have come to pass in the first place if the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 had not been passed. This was the beginning point of the road human rights that has occurred in New Zealand over the last 50 years. When looking at the history of equality and human rights in New Zealand, clear trends have emerged, in relation to New Zealanders and their fight for equality. Beginning with the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform Bill and consequently the 1993 Human Rights Act, the 2004 Civil Union Act, and in 2013 the Marriage Amendment Act, New Zealand has become an increasingly progressive country. It is important to make clear that the same equality and laws apparent in New Zealand society today would not have been established without the original people who fought relentlessly for Homosexual Law Reform from the 1960s-1980s.

Create a free website SunLive Mobile First same-sex couples wed Posted on 19th Aug 2013 08:48 | By Merle Foster merle@thesun.co.nz Bay of Plenty celebrants are receiving an influx of inquiries from same-sex couples wanting to tie the knot as a new law legalising gay marriage in New Zealand takes effect today. Natasha Vitali and Melissa Ray tie the knot in Auckland after winning an all expenses paid ceremony with ZM. Photo: ZM Celebrant Michelle Muir is dealing with a number of inquiries from same-sex couples wanting to marry. One Bay of Plenty celebrant has six same-sex couples booked in to get married this summer and another is set to perform one of the first legal gay marriages in the region. Around the country today 31 couples are expected to wed with four couples racing to be the first. ZM radio station is hosting what is believed to be the first gay marriage at 8am today where Auckland couple Tash Vitali and Melissa Ray will wed in Ponsonby. Fourteen other Auckland couples are getting married today, along with four in Rotorua, six from Christchurch and six from Wellington.

The Department of Internal Affairs reports almost 1000 marriage forms have been downloaded from the website in the last week. In Tauranga celebrant Michelle Muir has a same-sex male couple booked in to get married in the Bay of Plenty on September 8 –just three weeks after the Marriage Amendment Act passes into law. She believes more will jump the ditch to get hitched as gay marriage is not yet legal in Australia. “I think more will come here to get married – and I am surprised I haven't had more interest from same-sex couples, but I haven't advertised well enough,” says Michelle. “I never became registered for civil unions, and the reason I didn't is because it didn't give [same-sex] people the same rights as others being married, so I knew there wasn't a great demand for it. So I waited for the marriage law to change.” One of the same-sex couple marrying in Tauranga later this year is returning to the Bay of Plenty as he has family living here. “It's going to be a pretty small wedding, just their close family and friends.

They just want it be about the fact that they can get married and share their love for each other with the ones that mean the most to them,” says Michelle. “But I do expect demand for same-sex marriages to pick up [in the next few years] because there is no rush [to do it now]. They want to prepare just like any other couple.” On April 17, Parliament passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, 77 votes to 44, after MPs held a conscience vote on the private member's bill sponsored by Labour MP Louisa Wall. The law, which legalises gay marriage, comes 27 years after New Zealand decriminalised homosexuality and eight years after the country enacted legislation to permit civil unions. Tauranga celebrant Deb Hunt has six same-sex couples booked in to get married this summer wedding season, which begins in October. “I'm finding it quite busy with six [couples] confirmed and probably as many inquiries as well,” says Deb. With New Zealand being the first country in Oceania – and the 15th overall to allow same-sex couples to marry ­– Deb is fielding inquiries from overseas as well.

“A couple of those confirmed are coming from Australia and a few of my inquiries are from there as well … so it's been going really well.” But Deb says she is still busy doing civil unions as well – with three performed by her in the last month, “so they didn't want to wait even with the law change to legalise same-sex marriage,” says Deb. “A lot of it is they've already made the arrangements, and especially with weddings for so many services such as photographers and venues being booked out so far in advance, the chances of them being able to change it are pretty slim – and that plays a big part in it too.” Deb says after the law change, couples with a civil union will be able to change it to a legal marriage by paying a fee at their local courthouse. “Law change or no law change – they were going to make a commitment to each other anyway.” Celebrant Wendy Barton has had a few Bay of Plenty same-sex couples approach her to get married, but says there is not much difference between the new event and a civil union. “Tauranga is quite conservative and there may be more demand in centres such as Auckland, Hamilton and Christchurch.

“If couples are coming from overseas to wed, they would probably come to Tauranga, Auckland, Taupo or Queenstown – and I think that might make a difference,” says Wendy. “But once they go back overseas unless there are in the other 14 countries, which have legalised same-sex marriage, it will not be recognised – for example Australia will not recognise it.” Wendy has been in touch with some of the couples that she has performed a civil union for, and says not one of them is going to change it to a legal marriage. “They say ‘we got married on the day and had a fantastic day', and there is no advantage to them at all [by getting married legally] because none of them want to adopt a child which is not their own.” Celebrant Jackie Brown has only received two inquiries from couples wanting a same-sex marriage after August 19. For more information see: Effect - Homosexual Law Reform Homosexual Law Reform Effect on New Zealand Society Eventual success of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and Subsequent Human Rights Bill The impact of the Homosexual Reform movement had a significant impact on New Zealand’s law regarding the rights of homosexuals, and was responsible for key rectifications made in the law.

Part one of Fran Wilde’s reformation bill dealt with the legalisation of homosexual activity between males – with the desired age of consent of 16. After a gruelling 16-month period, the bill passed its third reading on 9th July 1986, by a margin of 49 votes to 44. Whilst gay rights supporters were jubilant at this result, opponents predicted very negative results of this bill. Regardless, on the 8th August 1986 the law came into effect and for the first time ever men in New Zealand could now enter into homosexual relationships without fear of prosecution. Despite this major victory for homosexual rights campaigners and Fran Wilde herself, the second part of the bill was defeated. This section of the bill dealt was meant to ensure that homosexuals could not be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It was essentially the human rights component of the bill. What this essentially meant was that whilst gays were now legally recognised as equals, society did not perceive them in this way, and it was still legal to degrade a homosexual because they were gay.

However, in 1993 MP Katherine O’Regan proposed amendments to the Human Rights Act, attempting to rectify the failure of the second part of Wilde’s bill. O’Regan’s propositions included ensuring homosexuals were not discriminated against in the work place or in public. In 1993 the Human Rights Act passed, and it was now illegal to discriminate against gay individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Whilst this Act went a long way to ensuring social equality between homo and heterosexuals, a certain amount of disparity still existed between them which would be addressed in years to come. Powerful speech given by MP Maurice Williamson, reflecting upon the impact of the Gay Marriage bill in New Zealand Louisa Wall after success of bill Civil Unions and Subsequent Legalisation of Gay Marriage in New Zealand Roughly twenty years on from the initial passing of the reform bill, New Zealand underwent more change in the homosexual sphere. The Civil Union Act was introduced to parliament by Labour MPs David Benson-Pope and Lianne Dalziel. The Act sought to make it legal for homosexual couples to enter in to a ‘civil union’ – a legal recognition of their relationship that provided many of the same functions as marriage.

The Act was passed on 9th December 2004, by a voting margin of 65-55, reflecting how closely debated the topic was in parliament. Between 2005 and 2008 there were over 2500 civil unions, as they proved extremely popular with gay couples who had been yearning for legitimate recognition of their marriage. Opposition to homosexuality conceded defeat in this respect and instead shifted their focus to ensuring marriage was not to become legal for homosexuals. Protests led by various churches who were unsettled by the change proved ineffective in achieving anything. Whilst Civil Unions was a big step for homosexual rights in New Zealand, many homosexuals still sought the right to be married in New Zealand, with legalisation of gay marriage occurring in other nations around the world. Openly gay Labour MP Louisa Wall proposed a bill that legalised homosexual marriage, which subsequently passed with overwhelming support and a 77-44 vote margin on 17th April 2013.

Green MP Kevin Hague, who was present when the bill passed, stated it was an ‘enormously powerful day’ for him and that "For me it's as if our communities have come on a journey from outside of New Zealand society and we are now right inside.'' The Bill became law on 19th August 2013, and huge numbers of homosexual couples registered to be married under the new law. New Zealand became the first Oceania nation to legalise same-sex marriage, and just the fifteenth nation overall to pass this legislation. Social Change in Society Whilst in a legal sense, homosexuals are very much on a level plateau with heterosexuals in modern New Zealand, this does not entirely reflect the societal situation. Before the bill passed, it appeared as though many New Zealanders weren’t open to homosexual marriage and that it didn’t have public support behind it. When the bill passed however, there was a major uptake in public support. This reflects how the change in legislation has positively affected homosexuals in society. People with little education or concern for this issue are happy to support it if their government supports it, and as a result society has moved towards being far more accepting of homosexuals and their right to get married.

This is similarly relevant to the previous period of homosexual reform in the 1980s, where many New Zealanders hated and publicly vilified homosexuals, believing them to be scum of society. However as more and more support gathered and legislative changes were promoted and passed, people began to listen less to the vitriolic diatribe of opponents like Norman Jones and more to the moderate, rational narrative run by those who supported homosexual reform. This allowed homosexuals to feel not only safer, but more comfortable with their sexuality as a result, and men no longer felt the need to suppress their sexual orientation. In the modern day it is clear we have came a long way from the bigoted, acrimonious society which ignored the death of Charles Aberhart and stomped on his rights and human dignity. We can be proud to live in a society, which no longer makes homosexuals feel oppressed, where they are able to live freely without fear of oppression, prosecution or inequality. Key Ideas -Fran Wilde's original bill passed by 49 voes to 44, meaning that homosexual activity was now legal between men. This marked a significant moment in homosexual reform history, and the paved the way for future reform. -In the twentieth century more radical reform began to occur.

In 2004 Civil Unions were legalised, meaning homosexual couples could now have their relationship legally recognised, and undergo many of the traditional marriage conventions. -In 2013 New Zealand became the fifteenth country in the world to legalise gay marriage, after Labour MP Louisa Wall passed the bill 77 votes to 44. This led to social upheaval in New Zealand as gay couples now finally had equal legal rights as heterosexual couples, and could have their marriage in a legitimate manner, Create a free website Learn and talk about Same-sex marriage in New Zealand, 2013 in LGBT history, 2013 in New Zealand, 2013 in New Zealand law, LGBT rights in New Zealand "Section 2: Interpretation -- Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995" . Parliamentary Counsel Office. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2013. New Zealand includes the Ross Dependency. ^ "Quilter v. Attorney-General [1998] 1 NZLR 523" (PDF). New Zealand Court of Appeal .

17 December 1997. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 January 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2012. ^ "Communication No 902/1999 : New Zealand. 2002-07-30" . United Nations Human Rights Committee. 17 July 2002. Archived from the original on 21 November 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2012. ^ "Act discriminatory, but no amendment" . Newstalk ZB . 14 September 2005. Archived from the original on 8 November 2005. ^ "Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill" . New Zealand Parliament . Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2016. ^ "Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill – First Reading" . New Zealand Parliament. 7 December 2005. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2012.

"Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill" . New Zealand Parliamentary Votes Database. Retrieved 27 November 2016. ^ Hartevelt, John; Levy, Dayna (14 May 2012). "MP drafting gay marriage bill" . Stuff.co.nz . Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 29 August 2012. ^ "Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – Proposed Members' Bills – Legislation" . New Zealand Parliament. 30 May 2012. Retrieved 18 July 2012. ^ Shuttleworth, Kate; Young, Audrey (29 August 2012). "Marriage bill passes first reading" . The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 29 August 2012. ^ Watkins, Tracy (14 March 2013). "Passions fly as MPs vote on gay marriage" . Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2013.

^ Schwartz, Dominique (17 Apr 2013). "NZ legalises same-sex marriage" . ABC News . Archived from the original on 3 January 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2016. ^ "MPs vote to legalise same sex marriage" . ONE News . Television New Zealand . 17 April 2013. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2016. ^ "New Zealand parliament breaks into song after legalising gay marriage" . The Guardian . 18 April 2013. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 19 August 2013. ^ "77 Politicians Commit Act of 'Cultural Vandalism', Media Release 12 April 2013" . Family First NZ. Archived from the original on 15 February 2016. Retrieved 19 August 2013. ^ "August 19 for first gay weddings" . 3 News NZ . 23 April 2013.

Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 19 August 2013. ^ Wade, Amelia; Theunissen, Matthew; Tapaleao, Vaimoana (19 August 2013). "Same-sex couples celebrate wedded bliss" . The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 19 August 2013. ^ Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, Section 5 Retrieved 23 October 2016 ^ Harkanwal Singh; Andy Ball (17 April 2013). "Marriage equality bill - How MPs voted" . Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 17 April 2013. ^ "Civil Union Bill: What the readers say" . The New Zealand Herald. 5 October 2012. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2012.

^ "RNZ Media Release: Same Sex Marriages" (PDF). Research New Zealand. 12 July 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 February 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2011. ^ "Views on whether same-sex couples should be able to marry" . Colmar Brunton. May 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 March 2015. Retrieved 23 September 2012. ^ "Support grows for gay adoption" . The New Zealand Herald. 30 June 2012. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2012. "Generations divided over gay marriage" . The New Zealand Herald. 27 December 2012. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2012. ^ "RNZ Media Release: Same Sex Marriages, Civil Union and Adoption" (PDF). Research New Zealand. 21 September 2012.

Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 February 2015. Retrieved 27 December 2012. ^ "Polls: Gay marriage, right to die get the tick" . The New Zealand Herald. 6 January 2013. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 6 January 2013. ^ "Shock poll over gay marriage bill" . The New Zealand Herald. 26 March 2013. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2013. ^ "'Legalise Love' campaign formally launched" . GayNZ.com . 22 August 2011. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2011. ^ "Pro-gay marriage protest hits Parliament" . 3 News. 20 October 2011. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 30 November 2011.

^ Amelia Romanos and Sharon Lundy (20 October 2011). "Calls for gay marriage to be on election agenda" . The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 30 November 2011. ^ "Marriage equality 'about love'" . 3 News NZ. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. ^ Chapman, Kate (23 November 2012). "Gay marriage 'not forced on churches'" . Fairfax NZ News. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 25 December 2012. ^ Davison, Issac (28 July 2012). "Gay marriage opponents gear up to fight Wall's bill" . The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2012. ^ "Anti-gay marriage petition launched" . 3 News. 29 July 2012. Archived from the original on 13 November 2012.

Retrieved 9 January 2013. ^ "Anti gay marriage website crashes after 'attack'" . Television New Zealand. 30 July 2012. Archived from the original on 2 August 2012. Retrieved 9 January 2013. ^ Davison, Isaac; Quilliam, Rebecca (28 August 2012). "50,000 sign against gay marriage" . The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2013. "New Zealanders For Marriage" . Archived from the original on 7 July 2013. ^ King, Caroline (16 April 2013). "Free Moa gig to celebrate same-sex marriage" . The Press . Christchurch. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 16 April 2013. ^ "Youth parties sign marriage pledge" . 3 News NZ. 11 March 2013. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014.

^ "Youth boost for gay marriage" . Stuff.co.nz. 11 March 2013. Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. ^ "Gay marriage 'a failure of democracy' - Craig" . 3 News NZ. 18 April 2013. Archived from the original on 5 December 2014. ^ New Zealand Electoral Commission. "Official Count Results - Overall Status" . Electionresults.govt.nz. Archived from the original on 8 March 2016. Retrieved 2015-12-27. ^ "Protect Marriage NZ" . Protectmarriage.org.nz. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2016. ^ "926 same sex marriages since law change" . Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand. 18 August 2014. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2014. ^ "One year on: One third of NZ gay marriages are of Aussie couples" . Gay News Network.

23 April 2014. Archived from the original on 16 January 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2016. ^ "Civil Unions and Marriages: September 2014 quarter (provisional) – tables" . Statistics New Zealand. 5 November 2014. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2014. ^ "Same-sex couples opt for marriage over civil union" . Statistics New Zealand & Scoop Independent News. 5 May 2015. Archived from the original on 21 November 2015. 10 Years of Civil Union in New Zealand Since then over 1,200 same sex couples have taken the plunge and been married. That’s 3,700 more couples than here in Australia. New Zealand was also the first country to give women the right to vote. Basic equality for all.

New Zealand also have an awesome start-up community and culture (with Wellington consistently being voted one of the best incubation hubs in the world), no capital gains tax, low corruption, wonderful food and wine, Milford Sound and an abundance of greenery and animals (no sheep jokes). We might have beaten you in the Cricket World Cup Final, but you can teach us a lot here across the ditch. Written by Kane Munro. Kane is a CPA who was “born” as an accountant on the day GST started (1st July 2000). An adviser as well as having served as a Virtual CFO , Kane helps build small business and start-up business by providing fresh solutions to clients in both the traditional and entrepreneur space. Having moved between Tax, Superannuation and Technology (and everything in between) he has a broad understanding on what makes most businesses succeed. Accountancy Online is a new way of looking at business and it’s a new way of looking at what drives your business and what drives the most important part of your business…YOU! The Accountancy Online team offer small businesses a highly experienced virtual CFO service who will work remotely as part of your team to help you improve your business.

We take ownership of your finance function as well as provide high level strategic guidance. Our VCFO service can provide you with the ability to achieve significant growth and success. SunLive - First same-sex couples wed - The Bay's News First Posted: 8:48am Monday 19 Aug, 2013 | By Merle Foster merle@thesun.co.nz First same-sex couples wed Bay of Plenty celebrants are receiving an influx of inquiries from same-sex couples wanting to tie the knot as a new law legalising gay marriage in New Zealand takes effect today. Natasha Vitali and Melissa Ray tie the knot in Auckland after winning an all expenses paid ceremony with ZM. Photo: ZM Celebrant Michelle Muir is dealing with a number of inquiries from same-sex couples wanting to marry. One Bay of Plenty celebrant has six same-sex couples booked in to get married this summer and another is set to perform one of the first legal gay marriages in the region. Around the country today 31 couples are expected to wed with four couples racing to be the first.

ZM radio station is hosting what is believed to be the first gay marriage at 8am today where Auckland couple Tash Vitali and Melissa Ray will wed in Ponsonby. Fourteen other Auckland couples are getting married today, along with four in Rotorua, six from Christchurch and six from Wellington. The Department of Internal Affairs reports almost 1000 marriage forms have been downloaded from the website in the last week. In Tauranga celebrant Michelle Muir has a same-sex male couple booked in to get married in the Bay of Plenty on September 8 –just three weeks after the Marriage Amendment Act passes into law. She believes more will jump the ditch to get hitched as gay marriage is not yet legal in Australia. “I think more will come here to get married – and I am surprised I haven't had more interest from same-sex couples, but I haven't advertised well enough,” says Michelle. “I never became registered for civil unions, and the reason I didn't is because it didn't give [same-sex] people the same rights as others being married, so I knew there wasn't a great demand for it.

So I waited for the marriage law to change.” One of the same-sex couple marrying in Tauranga later this year is returning to the Bay of Plenty as he has family living here. “It's going to be a pretty small wedding, just their close family and friends. They just want it be about the fact that they can get married and share their love for each other with the ones that mean the most to them,” says Michelle. “But I do expect demand for same-sex marriages to pick up [in the next few years] because there is no rush [to do it now]. They want to prepare just like any other couple.” On April 17, Parliament passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, 77 votes to 44, after MPs held a conscience vote on the private member's bill sponsored by Labour MP Louisa Wall. The law, which legalises gay marriage, comes 27 years after New Zealand decriminalised homosexuality and eight years after the country enacted legislation to permit civil unions. Tauranga celebrant Deb Hunt has six same-sex couples booked in to get married this summer wedding season, which begins in October.

“I'm finding it quite busy with six [couples] confirmed and probably as many inquiries as well,” says Deb. With New Zealand being the first country in Oceania – and the 15th overall to allow same-sex couples to marry ­– Deb is fielding inquiries from overseas as well. “A couple of those confirmed are coming from Australia and a few of my inquiries are from there as well … so it's been going really well.” But Deb says she is still busy doing civil unions as well – with three performed by her in the last month, “so they didn't want to wait even with the law change to legalise same-sex marriage,” says Deb. “A lot of it is they've already made the arrangements, and especially with weddings for so many services such as photographers and venues being booked out so far in advance, the chances of them being able to change it are pretty slim – and that plays a big part in it too.” Deb says after the law change, couples with a civil union will be able to change it to a legal marriage by paying a fee at their local courthouse.

“Law change or no law change – they were going to make a commitment to each other anyway.” Celebrant Wendy Barton has had a few Bay of Plenty same-sex couples approach her to get married, but says there is not much difference between the new event and a civil union. “Tauranga is quite conservative and there may be more demand in centres such as Auckland, Hamilton and Christchurch. “If couples are coming from overseas to wed, they would probably come to Tauranga, Auckland, Taupo or Queenstown – and I think that might make a difference,” says Wendy. “But once they go back overseas unless there are in the other 14 countries, which have legalised same-sex marriage, it will not be recognised – for example Australia will not recognise it.” Wendy has been in touch with some of the couples that she has performed a civil union for, and says not one of them is going to change it to a legal marriage.

“They say ‘we got married on the day and had a fantastic day', and there is no advantage to them at all [by getting married legally] because none of them want to adopt a child which is not their own.” Celebrant Jackie Brown has only received two inquiries from couples wanting a same-sex marriage after August 19. For more information see: Same sex marriage General Discussions Same sex marriage Welcome to SeniorForums.com - The most active online community for senior citizens and baby boomers. To participate in the discussions, please register , the registration is completely free and takes only one minute. 937 Same sex marriage Same sex marriage was passed into law in New Zealand on the 19 August, 13, by 77 votes to 44. New Zealand will be the first country in Oceania and the fifteenth overall to allow same-sex couples to marry. The argument 'for' has been, why shouldn't every couple have the opportunity to enter into a marriage like heterosexual couples if they so wish. Growing up in a conservative era, I've always seen marriage as a relationship between male & female but that has been slowly eroded over the years.

When Helen Clarke, past leader of the Labour party, was the prime minister, they passed into law, 'a heterosexual couple who had been in a relationship (partners) for 6 years or more, if they split up were entitled to the same property rights as a married couple.' This came into being to try and stem the flow of so many couples entering into a 'partnership' breaking up after a short period of time, leaving behind kids and one partner perhaps, out of pocket. As to its success who knows. In 2004 to appease the gay rights brigade, of which Helen Clarke our illustrious leader at the time was/is part of, brought in the 'civil union'; Civil union has been legal in New Zealand since 26 April 2005. The Civil Union Act 2004 to establish the institution of civil union for same-sex and opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament on 9 December 2004. The Act has been described as very similar to the Marriage Act 1955 with references to " marriage " replaced by "civil union".

A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, was passed shortly thereafter on 15 March 2005, to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration , next-of-kin status, social welfare , matrimonial property and other areas. Non-married couples are not however permitted to adopt children, although people in non-marital relationships can adopt as individuals. Within a few years it wasn't long before Civil union relationships were not enough for the 'gays' they wanted any relationship they entered into to be acknowledged as a marriage , (if they so wished) with all the rights of a heterosexual marriage, hence we now have the 'same sex marriage law.' Quite a number of people see this as 'taking away' something special that was between a male and female. For myself I can't say that it doesn't bother me, but as the saying goes, 'we must move with the times'.

Maybe now we won't be subjected to the half naked gay parades flaunting their sexuality, but I won't hold my breath. Posts 26,586 I don't care about same sex marriage very much either way, I suppose it's fine for homosexuals to share the same benefits and rights through marriage as heterosexuals. I don't feel threatened by it at all, even having grown up with the belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. Like you say, the times are changing, and I see more and more people coming out with their sexual preferences every year. As accepting as I am to one's right to choose their own lifestyle, I have to be honest about hearing of adoptions by gay couples. In the back of my mind, I feel that babies and children shouldn't be in the family, unless already there by one of the adults in the union. It kind of bugs me to see a bisexual couple adopt children, Neil Patrick Harris comes to mind. I've also heard of homosexual men having their sperm mixed up, so neither of them really knew who the father was, and having a woman artificially inseminated for money to have a child for them...stuff like that I will never be comfortable with.

Not saying it's right, but it is what I feel. I have concern for the children involved, whether warranted or not. I grew up in a large city, where I was exposed to many homosexual people, sometimes they kept a very low profile, and other times dress and acted in a flamboyant manner, which I think added to some people's negative views. I had a good friend when I was a teenager who was gay, and she was the nicest person ever. She respected my heterosexuality, and was just a nice person to hang out with, along with my other friends. As far as the parades, IMO, they do more harm than good for the gay community. Posts 4,227 My mild resentment of the gay marriage issue is more with the politicizing of it than with the personal aspects. The amount of attention the 'cause' receives is out of all proportion to the amount of people affected. Not even all gays like the idea of 'gay marriage', just a few very vocal, pigheaded ones. I have a gay friend who'm I've known for over 30 years, and he's just bewildered by this current trend.

He's had a few short term affairs, and a couple which lasted more years than many heterosexual marriages do and just doesn't see the necessity, or the benefit, in making the arrangement 'legal'. His attitude is why complicate what he views as freedom to live a chosen lifestyle unencumbered by the legalities and responsibilities accrued by official marriages. To paraphrase the bard "methinks they protest too much." I may think a bit strange, (shaddup) but to me it's more about exercising some right to be seen as special and somehow superior than to be accepted. Do they really believe that they have the emotional attachment angle cornered? Or don't they trust each other enough to stay together without a piece of paper? Or then again, is it just about money and rights of inheritance and access to a deceased partner's estate?? Hell, don't we all get into tangles over those things? We don't hear of too many problems being cured by marriage. I've just got this thing about fringe and splinter groups demanding equal rights to something they essentially already have. That can only mean that they want more than equality, they want their views to over-ride those of the majority and be formalized as 'special'.

To be blunt I resent them trying to push me around as though I'm some lesser, and dumber being because I'm not into what they are. That just makes my stubborn genes kick into overdrive. They demand tolerance, respect, and the right to behave, and say, as they like from the hetero majority , but play the martyr when verbal fire is returned, and spit taunts over any who disagree with their belief that they're something wonderful. They're not. They're just different. I chose not to marry, and chose never to have children, so I'm free to say I can't for the life of me understand why anyone marries at all other than to adhere to an outdated culture of legitimizing children. Gay marriage doesn't even do that so what purpose does it serve in today's changed society?? Too pragmatic? Should my heart be between my ears like the others who judge priorities on emotional grounds? Dunno, but it just seems a storm in a teacup to me. As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks?

Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them? A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter?? Posts 10,217 As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks? Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them? A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter?? I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum.

Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would. In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse.

It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children. As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents. As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome. I wonder - do crabs think that fish are flying? Posts 2,985 As to demanding to be able to adopt children. C'mon. If homosexuality is so 'normal' then why can't they accept it's drawbacks? Why are they so anxious to pretend that they are the heteros that they accuse of discriminating against them?

A lot of heterosexual people are deprived of producing the children they desperately want too, it's not just them. They ain't anything special. Why don't they want to be truly equal in coping with that disadvantage too? What exactly are they trying to prove at the cost of an infant who has no say in the matter?? I fully agree with the above. Nature doesn't allow two of the same sex to reproduce. We shouldn't either. I came into this world with nothing and I still have most of it. Larry Posts 8,167 I know that I'm old fashion as hell, but growing up and through most of the first half of my life, I never heard or cared what other people did with their lives. It was, I figured, none of my business. I had a gay friend in the Army and he lived his life and I minded my own business. It's when all this hub-bub about parades, TV, and throwing it in my face, almost daily, that I started to get a bad feeling about all this him and him and her and her. I don't CARE.! Live your lives the way you want, please, just don!t keep reminding me constantly about how you want to live yours.

I told you I was old fashion at the beginning of this. I was a country boy and was taught to respect my elders and not judge folks who are different. Who is a bee's favorite singer? "Sting" 1,073 Originally Posted by Warrigal I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution. Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would. In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID.

However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children. As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents. As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome.

Well said. Exactly my feelings on this subject! Posts 10,217 The view of my church is that people living in "right relationships" are fit for ordination. This includes married couples and same sex couples. It is promiscuity and infidelity (and a few other moral faults) that are the real barriers to leadership in the church. Of course, not everyone who wants to be a minister is accepted for ordination - they have to have a strong sense of calling and this must be endorsed by their worshipping congregation elders, but homosexuality per se is not a barrier in and of itself. So if homosexual men and lesbian women may become ministers and marry other people, is it reasonable to deny them the marriage rite for themselves? I wonder - do crabs think that fish are flying? 3,774 Originally Posted by Warrigal I thought like this until I had lengthy discussions with a lesbian couple on another forum. Slowly I began to realise that, just like mainstream heterosexual people, the same sex attracted folk are anything but uniform in their beliefs, needs and desires. Some have no desire for marriage and even despise it as an oppressive and anachronistic institution.

Others see it as the validation of their commitment to each other. These people are the ones who feel discriminated against by the status quo. I can see their point. If I was denied the opportunity for a legal marriage for some reason that seemed irrational to me then I would probably feel the same. Actually, I know I would. In addition I came to realise that children are already present in many of these unions, especially lesbian unions. One or both of the women may have had a child by a previous marriage or by AID. However the family is formed it is still a family but if the birth mother dies then the other parent has no claim to her child or children at all. The family can be split up, the children claimed by grandparents or estranged fathers. A court would probably decide the best outcome for the children but the timing, at the time of bereavement, couldn't be worse. It would be better for all concerned if the arrangements could be hammered out prior to a death as part of an application to adopt each others children.

As for gay men adopting other people's children, for some time now they have been allowed to be foster parents and are often the only ones prepared to look after some of the many handicapped children surrendered by their biological parents. As for marriage being between a man and a woman only, I certainly see it in those terms and it is on this fundamental coupling that is the principal foundation for a viable society but there is room for other arrangements too. Single people, communes and same sex couples, all enrich civilised society in their own way. In no way do any of these detract from my marriage to my husband so why should I insist that society push them to the margins. Let all take their place in the centre and feel welcome. another..'Well Said'

Question: What country was the first country in Oceania, and fifteenth overall, to legalise same-sex marriage?
Answer: New Zealand