Parliament

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 

Speech: Wall - Marriage Equality Second Reading

Louisa
WALL
MP for Manurewa
13 March 2013 SPEECH
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Second Reading Marriage (Definition Of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I move that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, 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've 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, 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 bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable. But what's 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's not about gay marriage, same sex marriage or straight marriage. It's about marriage between two people. There's 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's 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 and I quote:

"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 honor. 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's 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's 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 a licence to two people who love each other and want to commit to one another formally. That's what this Bill does.

To be valued for who we are is the bare minimum we should expect from others. It's the bare minimum we should expect from the State. For me it's 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 Bill of Rights Act extends the protections beyond these innate aspects to matters of status and belief.

I've always been clear that in pursuing marriage equality I will defend the rights of those in the churches to practice their religion on terms that they consider reflect their beliefs. Freedom of religion is an individual right and I support the Select Committee's recommendation to strengthen section 29 of the Act to make it clear 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 is totally misleading. The Select Committee amendment 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 any other way is disingenuous.
Exercising freedom of religion means religious groups view marriage as exclusive. That's the reality of freedom of religion and it's 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 LGBTI community with love, compassion and reason. My Bill is one step and will allow members of the LGBTI community to participate in the civil and state institution of marriage. Some church leaders have embraced that step and I'm 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 only conduct a marriage between a man and a woman was lost. That's a positive step and will allow ministers like Reverend Dr Margaret Mayman from St Andrews on the Terrace who submitted both personally and professionally to fulfill 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 Select 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 focussing 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..."

And in voting on this Bill I hope the House will give a message to all young people. You don't have to change. You can be who you are and we, as a society, will value who you are.

Kia Ora.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell: On The Budget

It may seem like Oliver to be so bold as to ask the Finance Minister for more gruel – but what the Dickens, Steven Joyce… is this Budget really as good as it gets?

Supposedly, the public was going to receive significant rewards – an election year lolly scramble no less – for the eight years of belt tightening that they’ve endured, and for the rundown of essential public services.

Well, what Budget 2017 delivered instead in Education and in Health were allocations barely sufficient to maintain the current levels of service delivery More>>

Scoop Full Coverage: of Budget Announcements & Reaction
Latest: Scoop Search

 
 

Auditor-General Stands Down For Investigation: Gordon Campbell On (Not) Taking Responsibility

So Martin Matthews, our current Auditor-General wishes he could have detected “earlier” the fraud that occurred on his watch at the Ministry of Transport. Hmmm. But he could have detected it earlier, surely? That’s the point. More>>

ALSO:

NGOs Pleased: Govt To Halt Collection Of Client Data

Brenda Pilott, the chair of ComVoices and national manager of Social Service Providers Aotearoa, congratulates the government on its decision to call a halt to the collection of individual client data until the concerns of not-for-profit service providers have been worked through. More>>

ALSO:

Gosh: Blasphemy Law Repeal Struck Down

Chris Hipkins, the MP who tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to add our Blasphemy Law to the Statutes Repeal Bill, said this was a "sad day for freedom of speech, tolerance, and leadership". More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Navy’s Dealings With Fat Leonard, And Twin Peaks

At an official level, our “she’ll be right” attitude routinely spills over into a keen resentment of anyone who suggests the outcomes may be less than satisfactory… The Navy has now gone one step beyond. It won’t even ask itself whether it did a good job. More>>

ALSO:

NZDF: Fifth Rotation Of Troops Heads To Iraq

The fifth rotation of New Zealand Defence Force troops left today for a six-month mission training Iraqi soldiers. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Demonising Of Iran

Will New Zealand still be willing to pursue its recent trade overtures to Iran, now that US President Donald Trump has used his speech in Riyadh to single out Iran as the main source of terrorism and instability in the Middle East? More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 

Opening The Election Supporters

 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election