This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Saint Andrews on the terrace to this event that's sponsored by the Saint Andrews Trust for the Study of Religion and Society entitled Marriage Equality, Reflections on Church and State. And before I go any further, um, you know completely, um, reveal my politics and to say that if you haven't heard, Obama has been declared, um, reelected in the United States. So that's a huge relief for the rest of the world. I'm sure so. [00:00:30] But it is my great pleasure today, um, to welcome you here, but also to welcome, um, the two other speakers who are going to join me in this reflection. Louisa Wall Whose Bill, Uh, we are, um, considering as a country and Kevin Hague who is also very involved in supporting, um, the passage of this bill through parliament. We decided not to have a bloody debate. Um, um, about this, we decided that we'd have a forum where we can explore, um, some of the issues around church and society, and I wanted to share some of my [00:01:00] understandings about the history of marriage and, um, and some of the religious considerations. But before we get into that, um Just to tell you that, um, in the event of a fire, we just notice where your fire exits are in the event of an earthquake in our very nicely earthquake strengthened church. Um, the drill is, as always, drop cover and hold if you need to go to the loo, Um, you actually need to go outside and down the pathway, um, into the church. Um, the meeting tonight is being recorded. [00:01:30] Um, so if you don't want, if you want to ask a question later on and you don't want it to be recorded if you could just indicate that before um, you start speaking and we'll make sure that that's not included it's going to be available. Um, through pride in Z, on the Internet and through the study trust, um, on our our DVD or audio CD. So, um, we we're going to our agenda this afternoon is that I'm going to speak for, um, about, um my [00:02:00] understanding of the religious issues around this. And then Lesa is going to speak about the background of the bill and about the issues of and sort of confusions and, um conflicting stories around the church and state issues. And then Kevin is going to update us on the state of the campaign and anything else that either of you want to add to this. But it's really great to have you here. And I'm really grateful, Um, that you're joining us today because, um, I, I really want to acknowledge that these two people are working tirelessly on the campaign [00:02:30] and acknowledge those of you in the audience today who are also part of the community. Um, who are supporting it? I'm I'm really encouraged by the popular support for this bill and by the huge number of New Zealand citizens, especially young people who are committed to marriage equality here at Saint Andrews. Our parish council is fully supportive, but we are aware that much of the opposition to the bill is coming from religious people. And sadly, Christians and other people of faith represent the biggest obstacle to marriage equality in New Zealand and internationally. [00:03:00] And so what? The purpose for me today is to, um to have us a chance to understand some of that opposition, but also to resource you in the conversations that you might have with people that you encounter over the next few months, Um, so that you can think through what this means to be a a person of faith and to be, um, whether you are or not And, um, to realise that people to be a person of faith does not mean that you need to oppose gay marriage. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We think that marriage equality is a spiritual [00:03:30] and ethical imperative, because the overriding message of our faith is that we're called to practise justice and compassion and to respect the dignity of all people, especially those who have been marginalised and excluded, and that this matters a whole lot more than half a dozen dubious biblical texts, Um, that have really, um, controversial and conflicted meanings. So today I want to address several issues. First, why? I think it's, um, acceptable for people of faith to be involved in a public conversation [00:04:00] at all. And the second to look at the current opposition to the bill from people of faith, the third to look at biblical and historical understandings of marriage and finally, to develop an affirming perspective from a Christian point of view. I know that some people in the um LGBT community, Um, believe that religious groups have no place in the public conversation and that religion should be a private matter. But I believe that people of faith in New Zealand have as much right as any citizen or any other group to participate [00:04:30] in public conversations about issues that matter to us as New Zealanders. Faith, properly understood, is not individualistic but grounded in a desire for the common good. What I don't believe and what I do not believe is that any particular religious group has the right to expect to have its theological beliefs enshrined in legislation simply because they are our beliefs. If we want to participate in the public realm, we need to make our arguments in ways that are convincing to people who do [00:05:00] not necessarily share in our beliefs. And I think that's a sad thing that that seems to be that a lot of people of faith in New Zealand don't understand that that quoting religious verses is a completely inadequate way for us to engage in public conversation. Some of the religious opponents to marriage equality have learned, I think, from the past from homosexual law reform and civil unions that outright religious bigotry and homophobia are not attractive to the majority [00:05:30] of New Zealanders. So this time they are being more clever and masking their religious opposition and more neutral sounding rhetoric. Glenn Carpenter, who's the national director of the New Zealand Christian Network, has said that the bill involved a redefinition of a word marriage that had a specific and clear meaning, and that has achieved little other than creating confusion around the word and the importance to society of the institution it describes. He says that if politicians took the step of treating [00:06:00] marriage as something that could be redefined at whim rather than recognising its natural based dimension, there was no rational argument which could be used to oppose any other variation which a minority group might push in the future. He also says that it is potentially, um enormous has potentially enormous sociological and economic implications for New Zealand society move. Duffy Duffy, who's a Catholic anti marriage equality spokesperson, has also invoked the economic argument, saying that changing [00:06:30] the official government forms will be prohibitively expensive and that we've done that not so long ago for civil unions. Well, I imagine that it was pretty expensive for South Africa and the Southern US to change the whites only signs on the drinking fountains and public pools. But it didn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do. And cost is hardly a satisfactory theological or ethical argument. And then you've all heard the slippery slope arguments that if marriage is defined once it can. There's nothing to [00:07:00] stop it being redefined again, to allow all sorts of other things which I won't repeat. But deep down, I think that this view comes from a belief that homosexuality is a sin in Contra, contrary to God's intention for human beings, and that there are Bible verses that will prove it. I find it fascinating that they and other religious conservatives are now saying that civil unions are satisfactory because they meet the social obligation of legal protection. But some of us have memories that extend as far back as 2004, [00:07:30] and we remember that Mr Carpenter and Mr McCroskey vehemently opposed the civil union bill and ex and invoked exactly the same slippery slope arguments. The reality is that religious voices opposed to rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in general and marriage equality in particular have become more sophisticated. But if you scratch the surface, it is religious arguments that are there underneath. What I think our task is is not to, um, engage in hostility, [00:08:00] um, and demonising people especially. I mean, I I'm fine about criticising Bob McCroskey. Um, but I think some of the people who, um, he appeals to, um our task is actually to engage them in conversation, um, to to be able to understand where they're coming from and to help them understand where we're coming from. And I think that ridicule and especially some of the racism that came out around the opposition to the, um um rather unpleasant march in Auckland a couple of weeks ago, [00:08:30] um isn't going to help our case. We actually really need to, um, engage with communities. So I want to say a little bit about the history of marriage all over the Western world. The movement to transform marriage is underway, but it hasn't been gay and lesbian people who've been bringing these changes about it's been heterosexuals. Gay theologian Marvin Allison has said that straight people have been queering marriage marriage has been changing for thousands of years, and for us it's about love. [00:09:00] But it hasn't always been that way. For millennia, it was about property and procreation and based on gender inequality, just as there's never been one Christianity. So there's never been one marriage. No monolithic or fixed Christian tradition exists. There are conflicting christianities, which differ over sexuality and all sorts of other things. The biblical call to justice and compassion. To love your neighbour as yourself is the thing that provides the mandate for marriage equality. Justice [00:09:30] is right. Relationship seeks both personal and communal well-being, embodied in interpersonal relationships and institutional structures, including marriage. I think it is important, as we address the claims for same sex marriage, that we understand something of the complex history. Usually religious arguments for or for, um, against same sex marriage focus a great deal on the Bible. But in reality, the Bible says very little about marriage as we understand it today and [00:10:00] nothing at all about same sex marriage. The texts that are used to condemn homosexuality were written by people who had no understanding that human sexual orientation is a continuum any more than they understood that the earth is not flat. The condemnations of same sex acts in the Bible are based on the needs of a marginal nomadic tribe to reproduce, and then on a need for a more settled religious community to differentiate itself from the religions around it that practise temporal [00:10:30] prostitution and for whom sex between adult men and young boys was commonplace. The biblical text had nothing to say about people who experienced same sex attraction and love, who wish to commit themselves publicly to one another and to receive the benefits and protections available to citizens in biblical marriage. As you probably know, polygamy was common, and women, Children and slaves were regarded as property, not fully persons. The patriarch had sexual access to multiple [00:11:00] wives, servants and to the wives and daughters of men under his control. In the New Testament, writings produced after the death of Jesus marriage was discovered, discouraged in favour of celibacy because Christians believe that Jesus would return and that the world would end soon. Until the modern period, marriage was primarily about politics, for the elite and economic survival for the masses. While there have always been loving marriages, marriage had its origins [00:11:30] and much more mundane realities. Some of the opposition to marriage equality comes from people who are anxious about social change. But people have been worrying about marriage since ancient times. The Greeks complained about the morals of their wives, and the Romans bemoaned high divorce rates and looked back with nostalgia to more stable times. And the new forms of family relationships that people think are unprecedented changes in family life are mostly not new [00:12:00] at all. Human beings have been creatively constructing our families for a very long time. There have been times in the past when it was more common for Children to be born out of wedlock than it is now. Step families were very common in the past because of the high rates of death and remarriage. And same sex marriage, though relatively rare, has been sanctioned in some cultures. Similarly, arrangements that are now presented as traditional marriage and popular cultures have [00:12:30] a pretty recent history. The involvement of church and state in marriage is one of the more recent innovations. For centuries of Christian tradition, a couple were considered Mar married when they privately said the words of intent to one another. I take you to be my husband, and I take you to be my wife. Neither judge nor clergy were involved, but marriage was still considered a serious commitment. Marriage, determined by political or economic considerations, only began to change in the 18th century, [00:13:00] 5000 years after it first began to take shape amongst the ancient tribes and kingdoms of the Middle East. But it was not until the late 18th century that love became to be the dominant issue within marriage discourse. For the first time in thousands of years, marriage began to be seen as a private relationship between two people, rather than a part of AAA system of alliances that were political or economic. Gender roles began to be differentiated, and the husband, [00:13:30] who had traditionally been the supervisor of the agrarian family labour Force, became to be seen as the bread winner, whereas in the past, women and Children had also worked outside the home and the wife became to be associated with the moral and domestic aspects of marriage. So the so-called sort of gendered idea of marriage, which feminism fought against in the 20th century, is a really recent development, and while it took more than 100 and 50 years to establish [00:14:00] the love based male breadwinner model of marriage as the dominant one. It took less than 25 years to dismantle it. The sixties and the seventies generated radical critiques of marriage, and the civil rights discourses at the time encouraged people to begin to think of marriage as a basic right. This thinking led to the overturning of laws that had banned mixed race marriages in most of the US south until 1967. And when that law change occurred almost immediately, [00:14:30] gay and lesbian people began to argue that they, too, should have access to this fundamental right to marry. By the late seventies, the social challenges of the sixties and seventies have created huge social change in people's attitudes towards personal relationship. There was a massive decline in people valuing conformity in favour of a focus on self fulfilment, intimacy, fairness and emotional substance, acceptance of singleness, living together, childlessness, [00:15:00] divorce and out of wedlock childbearing increased drama dramatically and once again, the economy figured in changing attitudes as women were pushed into the workforce by the need for two income families as well as personal fulfilment. The brief golden age of marriage, which I think is what conservative people of faith refer to when they talk about things like Christian marriage is over as more and more couples cohabit rather than marry. In many places, [00:15:30] marriage has lost much of its cultural and legal privilege, and many countries now give legal recognition and protection to non married couples. And I wonder if one of the outcomes of marriage equality might be that marriage actually becomes more appealing because I do know opposite sex couples who have declined to get married, who have chosen a civil union or chosen to stay living together because they associate marriage with some of those past injustices and inequalities. [00:16:00] I've spent some time talking about marriage as a human cultural phenomenon because I think it's really important to challenge the claims made by social and religious conservatives that marriage is unchanging or that there is one biblically sanctioned form of family. But I could also make a rather conservative argument that some of what was lost in the process of making marriage about intimate love can be reclaimed by the participation of gay and lesbian people in marriage. Same [00:16:30] sex marriage is attractive to gay people because we recognise that marriage is not just private and individualistic. It matters to us as a community, as people in relation to one another and, as it is, always done it Inter. It intersects with politics, economics and religion. But my claim is that none of these politics, economics or religion should have the sole power to define or limit who may participate in it. New Zealand [00:17:00] is a country with rich religious diversity. No single religious voice can speak for all traditions on issues of sexuality and marriage. Nor should the government take sides on religious differences. Therefore, religious groups must have the right to discern who is eligible for marriage in their own tradition. In addition, all clergy should be free to solemnise marriages without state interference. It's significant that many religious traditions already perform marriages and unions for same sex people, [00:17:30] even though the law does not permit same sex civil marriage, and there is no religious consensus on this matter. Currently, the state recognises only some religious marriages. The first same sex marriage at Saint Andrews took place nearly 18 years ago, so we've been waiting a while for this. We also believe it is important that there should be no compulsion for people to marry and to support the intent of the 2005 Relationships Bill [00:18:00] and the Civil Union bill in 2004, which sought to treat all relationships equally. The benefits and protections offered to the state to individuals and families should be available to everyone according to their need, not according to their marital status. I think the important contribution that churches and other faith communities have to this debate is to talk about why relationships matter in society, to look at what makes a marriage a relationship good things like responsibility, [00:18:30] equality and love, things to avoid, like violence and coercion, a place to ensure that Children are valued and loved and nurtured. So finally, I want to say that as a Christian, I believe that the faith I affirm challenges me to speak and act for justice. For all who seek to express their love in the commitment to marriage, some people of faith will disagree and others may be decided, but I hope that [00:19:00] we can find common ground when we reach out to promote what is best for individuals, couples, families, Children and society for progressive people of faith. This is not going to end the the search for justice. Um, this the passing of this bill, there are other things that we need to do. Achieving marriage Equality is an important goal, part of a wider vision to continue to work for justice, for all people and for recognition and support of the range of relationships and family forms that exist in our [00:19:30] society. Supporting the freedom of same sex couples to marry is grounded in a commitment to learn how to live more gracefully with difference, including sexual difference in an increasingly multicultural and religiously pluralistic and secular society. Thank you. [00:20:00] Uh, Margaret, I'd like to acknowledge you, uh, for this opportunity to engage, uh, with your congregation in the wider community here in in Wellington. Um, I stand here as, um somebody who was baptised, um, as a, uh, and somebody who has, uh, many times in my life, uh, done the pilgrimage to [00:20:30] every year. So I stand here as somebody committed to, uh, my beliefs and my values, um, as a person of faith, and so I am really excited about the opportunity to have some really frank and full discussions, uh, about the relevance of marriage equality to us personally, but also to us, uh, who come from particular religious, uh, denominations that may or may not support the proposition, uh, that two people who love each other actually should be enabled, [00:21:00] uh, through, um, legislation for the state to give them a licence to marry. And I'd like to focus on that, because essentially, what my bill is trying to do is to define marriages between two people, Uh, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity and really at the heart, uh, of that proposition is do we choose the sexuality we have, Uh, or is it a gift from God? Is it a gift from our I have written a chapter in a book about [00:21:30] my sexuality, and for me, it is a gift from my I'm very proud of my Maori heritage. I'm proud of my, uh I'm proud of my parents. They're proud of me. And so, uh, for me finding out I was lesbian, uh, in my teenage years and then and then accepting that, um, identity, uh, meant that I don't see anything wrong with myself. I think I'm a pretty normal person. And I guess that's the issue. Do people see homosexual homosexuals [00:22:00] as normal people, or are we different? And one of the premises that I talked about today at the select committee was Is there a different type of citizenship for homosexuals or actually, as in as is contained in the 1948 United Nations declarations of of human rights. We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights. And so fundamentally, if we believe that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. What that means, [00:22:30] I think, is that the state has a responsibility to all of its citizens, uh, to ensure that they have access to all the social institutions and civil institutions that we have as a society have. And one of those actually is in the issuing of marriage licence licences. So in New Zealand, only the state can issue a marriage licence and other parts of the world. Uh, the state and the churches can issue marriage licences, But in the domain of marriage in our country, we've had very clear separation of state [00:23:00] and church. Um, when I was asked to talk about the evolution, I guess, of where we are now. Uh, I can talk about the evolution of of civilizations, but I'll talk about the evolution. Uh, that's happened here in in New Zealand. So 1986 homosexual law reform. Now, that was an over 20 year period, uh, process to, uh, fight for the rights of homosexual men. Uh, not to be criminals. And, um, I was born, [00:23:30] uh, in 1972. I'm 40. So working out the maths I was like, Oh, I wasn't born when the discussion and the debate debate started, But I was, like, 14. And to be honest with you, I can't remember it. It didn't touch the world the context of wait to. But I know that for New Zealand as a society, there was a big it was a big issue. And I know the churches, uh, were engaged. And, for example, the Salvation Army were very, um, involved in that [00:24:00] campaign, and they've been not so involved in this one to date. Um, so I know that as a country, we had a very big, uh, discussion about homosexuality. Well, where we came to as a country. Uh, in terms of that debate about homosexuality is that we accepted that homosexual New Zealanders should be able to live open free and honest lives. So that was in 1986 in 1993. Uh, when we, um, amended our Human Rights Act section [00:24:30] 21 we made it unlawful to discriminate against anybody based on their sexual orientation. 10 years post homosexual law reform. So 86 2005, Um, we have three lesbian couples, uh, who wanted to get married. They had committed themselves these women for a number of years to each other, and they wanted to publicly And I agree with Margaret to publicly, uh, show their families the communities [00:25:00] that they were part of, that they wanted to formalise that relationship. And that discussion then led to a court of appeal, a high court case, a court of appeal decision. So we had what is called the quilter case and the quilter decision here in A in New Zealand and, uh, in 1998 that decision, um, basically said we don't define who can get married. And if you literally read our marriage act, it doesn't prohibit, uh, marriages, Um, between same sex couples. [00:25:30] But what they looked at was the convention of 1955. And because homosexuality was still illegal and it was a crime, then the assumption was that there had been a definition and that it was that marriage in New Zealand was between a man and a woman. What that then led to, uh was a response from our government. And our government's response at that time was in 2004. Uh, we created the institution of civil union. So we had women, [00:26:00] three lesbian couples who wanted the ability to marry. The state's response was to create another institution called Civil Union. Uh, I believe where we are today, uh, was where we were in 1967 in the United States and where we were in New Zealand, Uh, in, um, 19. Uh, sorry. In 1995 when those lesbian couples went to the local registrar and wanted a a licence to marry, Um, I will talk, um, specifically, [00:26:30] and I'm going to read this because I made my submission today. And I did, uh, make a comment about, um, my bill, Um, that there has been, uh, factions and sections of our society trying to divide and rule. And I guess scaremongering, particularly with people of faith, because they they have been trying to say that there is a requirement that churches will be forced to marry any couple issued with a licence. Um, it has never been that situation [00:27:00] ministers who, as celebrants, uh, can only provide access to the ceremonial and sacramental space of the church, and they have always been able to refuse to officiate for whatever reason. So examples from the past as Margaret highlighted, um, show that they can be on the basis of one of the party's religious beliefs or their race. Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 remains unchanged, and what that says is [00:27:30] celebrants and that includes ministers are authorised but not obliged to marry. A couple who have obtained a licence from the state and further the Bill of Rights Act 1990 identifies freedom of religion and Section 13, and that overrides any suggestion of unlawful discrimination being claimed under the Human Rights Act 1993 um A. As Section six of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 states clearly that the rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights [00:28:00] Act 1990 are preferred. So what that essentially means is we have two domestic pieces of human rights legislation. One is the Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religion. The other is, um, Section 21 of our, um, Human Rights Act, which says you can't discriminate based on section sexual orientation. But what it says is within the specific context of a church, a particular church denomination within the context of this beautiful church that we're in now. [00:28:30] It is the rules of this church that are dominant. Nobody can demand to come in here and be married. If Margaret says no, the answer is no. They can't then go to the police or to the Human Rights Commission or anybody else and say, uh, I demand because I'm being discriminated against by Margaret to be married in this church. It's not possible. And I think that some of the miscommunication [00:29:00] excuse me and scaremongering that's been happening, uh, in society. So what I'm asking for actually is some tolerance and understanding of each of our context. So some of us who have particular religious beliefs. I'm saying to you that my bill isn't going to undermine your definition of marriage, your view of marriage, how your church practises marriage. That's for you to determine. What I'm saying, though, is please have some understanding, some respect. And [00:29:30] also, I guess, some consideration, uh, for the fact that we live in a very multiethnic, multicultural society, Uh, that each of us have different ways of expressing ourselves. And so for some members of our community who are non heterosexual, the ability to actually marry is very significant. Um, I know Kevin's gonna talk a bit more about the campaign when he comes out, but really, the the key message that I have [00:30:00] is about we live in this beautiful country, and there's many of us who live here now. And, um, I think what is also um, happening is conversations that possibly have never happened before. And so our values, our beliefs, who we are, I want to preserve that, um, but I'm asking people to think about what type of life it must be, particularly if you're a young, lesbian, gay, [00:30:30] transgender, transsexual person growing up in a society that actually says you're different you're not the same as me. Uh, in fact, we're not gonna allow you to have marriage because you're not worthy. You're not entitled. Um, the issue, uh, for me about the relevance to younger New Zealanders, Uh, one I think that this is a generational issue. Um, and that has been evidence for me in referendum [00:31:00] held at both the University of Otago and the University of Victoria, where 84% of the young people who participated in that, uh, support marriage equality. But it's also really relevant when I look at the high rates of youth suicide that we have in our country. And I believe one of the big issues that we have to confront as a country is the fact that our Children are growing up hopeless. There's no hope they're growing up in an environment. Uh, that somehow isn't meeting [00:31:30] their needs or isn't providing them the resilience for them to be who they are. And so, if this conversation can also open that conversation up, uh, to the religious community so that we can start, you know, looking at engaging quite critically about the state of our young people's mental health. Uh, then that will be significant. And I think, um, that, uh, that opportunity has been provided for, so thank you very much. I look forward to answering questions. [00:32:00] Um, and I will pass the ball, as they say on to Kevin, and hopefully he can catch it tonight. Um, I'm an atheist. You know, I did have several brushes with religion, probably Sunday [00:32:30] school when I was between the ages of about four and six, I think. And, um and then a brief period in a group called the Crusaders when I was when I was 12. I don't know if the name gives anything away, but it was, and it probably has formed some some some, uh, some lasting impressions of, um, of religion, uh, around conformity, um, around a defence of [00:33:00] the status quo. Um, and those are prejudices of mine. Those prejudice prejudices were confronted for me. Um, during the campaign, probably about 1980 I think, as we were starting to wind up the campaign against the Springbok tour and, uh, several of the people in the coalition that I was part of, uh, that I related to the most and found that I had the most in common [00:33:30] with in terms of our values and beliefs, uh, turned out to be, uh, students at the Baptist Theological College in Auckland and and, uh, happily for me, I guess II I have been able to form form a relationship that's been ongoing, uh, with the progressive wings of, Of of many of our churches and II I quite proudly say that, um, some of my best friends have [00:34:00] religious belief and faith, But in the in the mid 19 eighties, in fact, um, so at the time when we were campaigning, um, for for homosexual law reform at the same time, there was also a campaign going on. This is in Auckland, um, against the proposed all black tour of South Africa. And so, actually, what we had was a bunch of people who were rushing from protest to protest and meeting to meeting [00:34:30] between these various and potentially, I guess disparate causes. But actually, we realised that that the the while we put down the the the banners for one and picked up the banners for the for the other. Um, actually, the thing that was uniting us as a group and uniting those issues was a passion for justice. And so we said, Well, rather than have all of these, we joked, In fact, it would never work as APR thing rather than [00:35:00] have all of these disparate little organisations. Why don't we just call ourselves the Alliance for Justice? And I can happily say that in the intervening, uh, nearly 30 years, that again and again I've found myself working alongside either those precise people or people very much like those people who share that same passion for justice and those same values. Um, Lewis [00:35:30] has mentioned those those, um, those arguments about about health, about suicide. And some of you will have seen my first reading speech on the bill where I talked about how that passion for justice for our young people was what drove me in particular because for me, as a an adult gay man and some of you will have heard me say this before, uh, my life now is immeasurably better than [00:36:00] the life that I would have led in Let's see the late seventies when I was in the process of coming out, Uh, and I'm proud to say that I've contributed to many of those changes But for the young person coming out today, I really don't know that it's actually that much better or easier, uh, than it than it was for me in the late seventies. Because still, there's that that feeling of isolation, um, of, [00:36:30] uh, loneliness, that, uh, that, uh, sense of difference in contrast to all of those other influences in that in that young person's life, because probably their family has brought them up, assuming them to be heterosexual, that they themselves and their friends have probably assumed them to be heterosexual. And they are surrounded by a schooling system that, by and large, assumes that they will be heterosexual [00:37:00] and a new and a I can say news media. But a general media so general culture that with only a very few exceptions, makes that same assumption. So the the leap that that person has to make from that scary, lonely place to to coming out into an environment that those of us who are adult, um, gay or lesbian or transgender people know to be actually a lot better [00:37:30] than that, um, actually is pretty hard. So so that contribution to the the mental health and also the the physical health, Um, of our young people is actually really what drives me. Um, I could rave about that for a very long time, but I, I won't. Actually I'll I'll refer to the the the point that Margaret's made about, um, about, uh, the the what's called the loving case loving, [00:38:00] actually, interestingly, in a couple of different ways, uh, loving in this case because it's the name of the people involved. It was the It was the Lovings who who were a next race couple who and let's see, I think it was 1958 left the, uh, left the state of the state or the Commonwealth. Sorry of Virginia, um, and, um, and went to the District of Columbia to become [00:38:30] married. They were a mixed race couple. It was illegal for them to become married in the state of in the Commonwealth of Virginia. But having having having got married in in in the, uh, in, uh, in DC, they came back to Virginia and they were, um, they were arrested for having for having breached, uh, the, uh the the the laws of that state, which [00:39:00] prohibited, uh, prohibited marriage between people of different races Just read to you. Um, what happened in in the court case? Because they they lost their their their court case. They were found they were convicted in Virginia and they were, uh, sentenced to, I think, uh, let's see, a year in prison, uh, suspended, Provided that they left Virginia. Um, and the the trial judge in the case, um, [00:39:30] proclaimed that I'll just give you a quote. Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red. And he and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference, as with his arrangements, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to [00:40:00] mix. Now, I I cite that for for a couple of reasons. Um, one of them is Is this that actually the the arguments in the United States that were used to defend the ban on I? I can never actually pronounce this word. Miscegenation, miscegenation, mixed race marriage. However you're supposed to pronounce there. The arguments that were used [00:40:30] are precisely the arguments that are now being used against same sex marriage. Precisely so there's the argument of tradition. For example, there's the slippery slope argument that that you've heard talk talked about tonight on the, um and most recently in America. And we've we've had our own, um uh, arguments based on a slippery slope that we've seen recently here. But, um, they echo comments from, for example, [00:41:00] Rick Santorum in in America about Well, if we if we allow same sex marriage, what will be next? Is people wanting to marry their pets? Um, and and And indeed, this is one of the arguments that was used by the by the Virginia authorities in the appeal that the Lovings took against their conviction because they challenged, uh, the Commonwealth of Virginia's laws. [00:41:30] And, uh, let me, um, let me let me read to you, uh, just, uh, 11 more quote from from the, um, from the ancients. Um, so this is from the, uh, from the the assistant attorney general of Virginia, uh, arguing, uh, their their case. It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho sociological aspect of this question. Uh, that, um, intermarried families [00:42:00] are subjected to much greater pressures and problems, um, than others. and that the state's prohibition on of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. So that same argument is being used in New Zealand right now as [00:42:30] well as in the states. Um, there's an argument that again, that Virginia used in the Supreme Court about, um, the welfare of Children, arguing that the Children of interracial marriages would be subject to, uh, uh, AAA particular kind of penalty and that they should be regarded as victims or martyrs of of, uh, of the social experiment. Um, and there are several others. [00:43:00] So the arguments are entirely parallel. I am. I thought I should perhaps come come back to to read from the Happy conclusion, because the Supreme Court in 1967 did overturn the Virginia law and, um, and in a unanimous agreement and the unanimous decision that what they said was, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. [00:43:30] I'm sorry. Well, I'm not quoting there. What they what I said. I'm sorry they didn't apologise for that. But I'm sure they would now, um, fundamental to our very existence and survival to deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial racial classifications embodied in this these statutes classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th [00:44:00] Amendment, which, uh, which is the amendment that provides for due process and equal protection under the law, uh, is surely to deprive all the state's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The 14th Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted to by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides [00:44:30] with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state. And they go on to make precisely the human rights argument that you've heard from Louisa Wall tonight. Precisely that argument that there is no there is no rational ground for for denying that equal right to some citizens of the state. Um so I think Oh, look, I, I just have to give you one more quote. Sorry. [00:45:00] This is this is a quote right from this is a quote, not from 1967. It's a quote from 2007, and this is actually from Mildred loving and what she said. So she is the person the the who was was able to marry. Finally, through the through the Supreme Court decision, she said, surrounded as I am now by wonderful Children and grandchildren. Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, [00:45:30] our right to marry and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race no matter their sex no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some [00:46:00] people's religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's in my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life, I support the freedom to marry for all that's what loving [00:46:30] big L and loving small L are all about. I think that's pretty terrific. I am. To me, this is a measure that brings great good to a great number of people and harms nobody at all. And that seems to be a pretty good basis for a law. I, um I said for the first time on the select committee today, hearing [00:47:00] submissions on the bill. We had a fantastic submission. It was it was taught. It was compelling. It was comprehensive. Um, and we're going to be sitting an awful lot over the coming months. Um, so thanks to everyone who put in submissions, there are, um Well, so far, they've counted over 20,000. Um, and they haven't finished counting yet. And so they can't yet [00:47:30] tell us, um, how many are in favour and how many are against and where people come from. Uh, but the select committee's got some some some work to do so that we can report back the bill by the end of February. Uh, the the state of the campaign is thus we and I. I want to acknowledge, um, a lot of people in this room today, and especially in fact, uh, Margaret [00:48:00] Maman and those involved from from the campaign who I see and from, uh, Rainbow Wellington, and and others who have worked hard for this bill in that first reading debate, the media were calling it as well. It's going to be close. We think maybe they they'll just have the numbers for the first reading. Um, and in fact, what we saw was a result of 80 in favour and 40 against. That's a really emphatic result. [00:48:30] Um, and it's, uh it's a tribute to the great organisational work that many of you were involved in doing. So thank you very much for that. One of the things about that emphatic result is that it it it it makes it less likely that that future debates will go a different way. But having said that, um, the the civil unions bill campaign went from a really good result at first [00:49:00] reading to not exactly whisker thin, but a very thin margin at the at the next. At the next reading and eventually to a whisk whisker thin margin so the things can go can go wrong for this. Um, so the things that we've done, right, uh, working with MP S and helping helping them to get to the point of supporting the bill in the first reading, organising a a very great number of submissions. [00:49:30] And what I particularly like about the submissions that I know that I've seen so far in favour of the bill is that is that they are generally submissions that that that are ones that, uh, are arguing a personal story or arguing unique arguments. Uh, rather than simply a form submission that that parrots set a set of arguments. That's very important. It's very important because one [00:50:00] of the things that the select Committee will do is say Well, with in excess of 20,000 submissions, um, and until the end of February, to hear submissions, it is not possible to hear all of the submissions of people who want to make oral submissions. So all of those who have made form submissions and this is a standard process. Um, we will not hear those. Those submitters in person [00:50:30] will read those submissions, um, and guarantee people that we'll do that but, uh, we we won't in fact hear oral submissions for from them. So the fact that so many of the submissions in favour of the bill, uh, in in fact not in the nature of form submissions is incredibly important. The other thing that that that that the campaign for marriage equality has done right at this point is, uh is the approach that's [00:51:00] been taken to, um, to to MP S across the house and in particular, several MP S have come to me and said it was fantastic that, um, people contacted me to thank me for voting for the bill. Um, and I think that's very important. If you haven't thanked MP S yet for voting for the bill, that would be a really great thing to do. Um, there [00:51:30] the and and, uh, on the other side of the equation, there's a group of people, of course, who voted against the bill. Interestingly, we know that some of those MP S who voted against the bill personally support it, but are just scared about the consequence of voting for it. Um, and it may well be that we can that we can persuade some of those to come over in the time ahead. What's going to happen is that is that through until the end of February, [00:52:00] the the main phase of things is going to be this hearing of submissions and there'll there'll be a regular round of media media. I'm sure associated with those submissions. We'll hear the next batch of submissions next Wednesday. Submissions are generally held in public. You're in Wellington. If you'd like to come along, please do. It's always always great to have to have people in the room. Then we'll get into the business of the second reading. [00:52:30] And that'll be another set piece debate very much like that. First reading. Great to have people in the gallery, but also great to have people contacting MP S and and giving support for the moral courage to continue to support the bill. Uh, and then the committee stage. But we need to we need to, um, as a vegetarian. This is maybe the wrong metaphor. But eat the elephant one bite at a time. So so, So second reading [00:53:00] is the is is our next focus. So so getting those submissions done as as well as we can and then the second reading debate to go as well as it can. And then we'll come to the committee stage. And then finally, that third reading, Um, and we'll we'll we'll have advice that that we'll keep feeding through via the campaign. So thank you very much for your support. Thanks for coming tonight. And thanks to Margaret for organising the forum. [00:53:30] So we do have an opportunity for questions on the floor and we've got a radio mic. Um, so if you want to, um, make a quick for a question or a comment, um, please feel free to do that and raise your hand. That is a great place to start. And if you would like to say who in particular you'd like to have respond to it, that would be great. Thank you, Thank you. My name is Paul Franken and I speak for myself. Um, I think the point that was made about tolerance is [00:54:00] a very good one. We we, as a society are very accepting and in fact welcome the old Catholic and Latin hymns and masses on the concert programme. I think the churches should be equally welcoming to the wonderful quality of the gay people that are around and accepting instead of maybe tolerating them. Uh, what I want to my my main question or my remark is on the separation [00:54:30] of the church and the state if one gets married and I was married some time ago, Um, after the ceremony, you go into the side room and you sign the civil contract. It is quite a separate contract if two people and I've confirmed that from the ER, the people that I'm still practising myself at the moment, if two people come to a Catholic priest and say that they do not intend to [00:55:00] have any Children, the priest cannot marry them. If people come to the church, uh, the the priest, and ask them to marry them. Uh, but they are infertile or they are old and beyond the the age of reproduction. Then, for some reason, or rather, the church will marry them. Uh, on the positive point of view that maybe everything will turn out right. But there is a mixed blessing [00:55:30] the final point that I want to make there, that if the highest court in the Catholic Church, uh, annul a marriage, then it has absolutely no effect on the civil state of that marriage. It is completely concerned with the sacrament that they're welcome to. They've annulled that. But for as far as the state is concerned, that decision of that court or tribunal make any difference at all. So [00:56:00] we are separate. And if the churches want to have an input and a decision on ruling other people's lives, their own constituents let them recognise that there is a separation of state. I've been to too many funerals for people that have committed suicide. I went to a funeral last weekend of two old people. [00:56:30] One was 85. The other one that died is 77 in Macedon, and the the 85 year old has no ability or opportunity to grieve in public on the loss of his partner. He was completely effaced from the notices in the church and the notices in the paper and from the, uh, celebration of the funeral that I did attend. [00:57:00] Yeah, I just want to respond just briefly to that. I mean, there is a lot of grief that the church still causes, and I think, um, as people of faith, we need to acknowledge that. And I think, um I mean, I do make an appeal for for tolerance and for making space, but I think that comes with some responsibility to recognise the humanity of others. And I just hold out hope that, you know, the churches do change. There have been lots of, um, [00:57:30] areas of Christian understanding of marriage and all sorts of other things that have changed and parts of the church are, you know, well and truly changed. And like being able to talk about the the weddings that have been held here, um, and the civil unions, um, I think we need to hold on to the hope and hold on to the expectation that people can behave better. The the church and state stuff is complicated in New Zealand because as a clergy person, you do perform a role. Um, you are the one that signs that document. Um, [00:58:00] we don't do it often in a side room, but it's part of the service. Usually, um and that's one of the difficulties I think that we face. Whereas in some places in Europe, um, people go and have their civil marriage, and then they come to their faith community if they want to and have a blessing. And I would prefer that we had that. I think the churches actually would be better off. Um, not being agents of the state. But at the moment, we've got the situation that we've got. We we've inherited English law rather than European law, and we have to find a way to work that out and to really [00:58:30] respect the human rights and dignity of all members of our society. Hi, Tony. Tony Reid, Rainbow Wellington. But on this case. But in this case, speaking for myself as an unfortunate constituent in Otaki of Nathan Guy MP, Um, I wrote to him, of course he avoided Everybody got a reply saying he hadn't made up his mind. He refused to debate [00:59:00] anybody and then voted against the bill. If he's said anything, it just seems to be Oh, well, I'm voting on what my constituents said, and anyway, I'm socially conservative. I had covered specifically the fact that I knew he was likely to get far more against than in favour because of all the fundamentalists there are around our way and the fact that in rural areas [00:59:30] a lot of gay people aren't going to put their heads over over the balustrade to say I mean, it's a well known fact that Levin is possibly one of the worst places to be gay in the whole of New Zealand. But I'm sure I'm not unique here in having an MP who is very difficult to reach, who doesn't seem to want to indulge in debate in discussion, who almost treats his vote as if he's a private citizen [01:00:00] rather than an MP, which really annoys me because he shouldn't vote. If he's just voting on a personal whim, he should just stay away. But he won't, um, so I would devalue from from the two MP S here, any suggestion of what people like me can do? And there might be people here from the Wairarapa who are possibly in even worse condition, a worse situation than people from Well, [01:00:30] um, who do you know that he likes? I mean, this is the thing. Uh, I mean, I think, uh, I I would guess from what you've said, Tony and and also from from my experience, um, that he probably is not someone who's going to change his mind. And therefore we need to think about whether it's worthwhile or valuable to put energy into trying [01:01:00] to change his mind. And if you have energy to burn instead to put into, um, uh, put into supporting some of the others who who have who have supported. And I think that's that's probably what what I would suggest, Um, there are, I mean it. It is always, of course, worthwhile letting your MP know, because there are some surprises. I mean, on on the first reading night, I think we were all surprised by some of the people who voted, voted in favour. [01:01:30] Um, and I believe that it's possible that there are some who voted no who could be persuaded to vote. Yes, but it's a question of who is talking to them because I know give you an example of a national party MP who was intending to vote? No, um, but who had people coming coming to see him, um, to try and persuade him otherwise. And [01:02:00] they were people that he identified as non national voters. So what? What He was what he said to me as well. It's interesting what they think, But why would I, um, pay attention to that now you or I might think that's an abhorrent way of making a decision. But it's it's a reality that, actually, some of these people will respond when they think that there are actual actually votes that are [01:02:30] either for them or potentially for them that are at risk. So think about who is the right person to go and see them. And and I'm happy to help with that. So the only thing I can add is that each of us has teams of people around us. So it might be, uh, Nathan Guy's Electorate committee. A member of that. I'm not sure if you know who they are. Someone from his office. Um, but we are in a very good [01:03:00] position because we had 80 people who voted for the bill. Now we don't take any of those votes other than ourselves. Well, mind you, uh, 14 green votes, because they, um, are voting as a party. Um, I don't take for granted, um, anyone's vote. So we're working all the time to make sure we're communicating with those that voted in support. And I think if we do that, if we keep the people that we've got. In fact, we do have the numbers, but, um, I'm disappointed that people don't want [01:03:30] to engage in conversation. Um, I think that this opportunity for us to talk about, uh, this issue means that, you know, it is incumbent on MP SI believe, um to talk to people who are for and against. I've had people come and lobby me, and I said, you realise, this is my bill, but I've heard them. I've seen them in my electorate office, and I've given them the respect, um, and asked them to think about some things, but yeah, but, um, thank you for your work. My name's Colma [01:04:00] Frogger, and I'm a member of Saint Andrews. Um, my I made a submission, um, in support of the bill. It's the first time I've ever made a submission for anything in my life. Um, but my story, which is quite simple, might actually be helpful for Nathan guy because I suspect that most people here tonight are in support of Louisa's Bill. For me, it's a very straightforward [01:04:30] issue of fairness and justice. Um, I have two adult Children. I have a son who is about to get married. Um, he has the choice of a civil union or a wedding. A marriage, um, in a church or wherever he chooses. My daughter doesn't, um she is gay. Um, And I would like my daughter and her partner to have the same rights and recognition as my son does. So [01:05:00] if there are people here who aren't in support of the bill, perhaps you might like to think again. And if you know people who haven't made up their minds or who might like to change their minds, perhaps the simple story might help. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Hi, [01:05:30] there. My name is Frans. I'm, um Everybody will start. Everybody will start hissing boo when I say I'm an A kid. But I kept a very, very open mind, and I've heard all the talk from the tree here. Sadly, I was a little bit, um, shaken by the seemed to be a certain amount of hate there. I'm sorry. Coming from Margaret. Um it seemed to be it seemed to be sort of a hate thing. OK, the church is not perfect, but the thing is, it, um it's it's like a sort of a sign [01:06:00] post for people who are obviously in need. Obviously, they don't unfortunately in the past cater for everybody. But I think there's there's a little bit of bit of hate there, and they seem to be slanted that one way because, you know, you got two people have got to sort of get together and and you got to have more dialogue. And I think you really do have to have a lot more dialogue on this. OK, your bill could pass, but you still need to have a dialogue because, you know, the church is not the gap, but the church is not the bad guys. [01:06:30] No, they're not all these bad guys. There's some really good people there from all churches, but I'm just a little bit disappointed with Margaret. But everybody else, um, I will give you all a fair hearing, and I'm sympathetic. I I'm not a sort of a a gay basher or anything like that. I'm very open. But, uh, you know, that's how I feel. And, uh, nice to see you again. Um, Louisa there, uh, shame you couldn't get your, uh, your, uh, basketball things on again. That's me. Anyhow, So, uh, Margaret's [01:07:00] going to answer that. I would I would like to respond to that. I think, um, if you listen to what I said, um, in terms of what I expressed I, I think there are, um there is a real need for dialogue. And that's one of the things I want to say to people who are upset about what churches are saying because it is true that most of the opposition that's come to this bill is religious opposition. And we, as people of faith, need to deal with that. Um, you know, I spend my life in the church. You know, I, I love [01:07:30] the church. Um, and I love what it can be and become, and I'm also very aware of its flaws. Um, but one of the things that we try to do in a situation like this is to provide a place for people to, um, speak respectfully. And that means for me acknowledging, um, it means being truthful, too, to tell the truth. And when there is injury, um, to acknowledge that. And I think, you know, as people of faith we have done and the church actually has been the bad guy. Um, the church has been the bearer [01:08:00] of, um, a great deal of hatred, um, two people. And if you remember what it was like on the steps of Parliament during the 19 eighties, with those rallies, there are still people who are very damaged by that. There are people who are gay and lesbian who grew up in churches who signed that, um, petition that the Salvation Army was putting around because they felt, um that they had no choice. And they lived with the damage that they did to themselves. So I want to As somebody who is involved in the church and involved in this, um [01:08:30] to to really recognise that we do have, um we do have some apologies to make, and I and I hope that as the church has been involved in other things that have been unjust and has eventually seen things differently and made apologies, we will apologise to gay and lesbian people, Um, for the fact that we have been the bearers of a lot of opposition. And I think, um, you know, still contribute, um, to a lot of pain, especially for young people who grow up in conservative churches. One [01:09:00] of the things that marks my ministry here is that I because people know that I'm gay and part of the church, I'm a person that young people coming out growing up in Christian conservative, Christian faith communities come and talk to. And I know, um, how hard it is for them. And, um and I know that despite the rhetoric of, um, love the sinner and hate the sin, that there's a whole lot of hating going on in terms of how people are treated. I'm in contact with a woman, um, who lives in another city at the moment who is being [01:09:30] harassed and exposed, Um, by Christians. Um, because she's gay and she's been working in a conservative church position. She's losing her family, her friends and her job because of people who are acting in the name of Jesus Christ. So I think it's really important to name um what? What what has been, um, and to be honest about, it's not about hate. It's about acknowledging, um, that we bear some responsibility. And that's part of the reason that a community like Saint Andrews on the terrace is engaged in standing [01:10:00] up, um, in solidarity, not just passively letting the bill go by because it will get by without us. But it is really important that we contribute to a conversation that's about changing the way that we talk about one another and about, um, moving towards real respect. [01:10:30] Um, I'm a Roman Catholic, and, uh, I, um, decided, um, that our Lord Jesus Christ is, uh, taught us that he was, uh that God was a god of universal love and justice. So I he he Would he let God, uh, left [01:11:00] us, or our Lord Jesus Christ left us to work out the details of our morality given, uh, the overall injunction to love one another and to be just, which means treating like cases alike. Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, uh, about 1000 years ago. The following, uh, on what [01:11:30] a sin was a sin in human acts is that which is against the order of reason. Now, the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Therefore, it is no sin if one by the dictator of reason makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end for which they are adapted. Provided this end is something truly good. Now, the the in the past, uh, various Christian [01:12:00] religions, um, were against, uh, or Christian sex. I should say we're we're against, uh, homosexual union on the basis that there was no obvious that it served no obvious purpose. But tonight, we've heard, uh, that, of course, when two people bond and care for one another, uh, they should, uh, proceed accordingly. However, [01:12:30] um, Saint Thomas also teaches us that the sac sacrament of marriage is conveyed by the partners upon one another. And neither the the church is merely a witness where that is possible in New Zealand up until 1918, I think it wasn't possible for priests to witness a marriage on the part of the church, so it was quite acceptable for couples to convey this argument of matrimony upon one another in country [01:13:00] districts. And so on until subsequently a priest could take notice of the not the marriage down on on behalf of the church. And basically what what I'm saying is that, um, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, there is actually plenty of room for change in the assessment, for example, we now know that, uh, that the that human women, uh, cease to be fertile halfway through their lives. This is very [01:13:30] rare prac practically unique in the animal world. And the reason is, of course, um, that it takes more than a single generation, uh, to raise Children. So women, um, cease to be fertile halfway through their age so that in general they can help their daughters bring up their Children and so on and so forth. It now appears that, um, nature provides us with further spare hands in the [01:14:00] business of raising Children. Um, by, um, ensuring that, uh, a fairly large number of people are going to be, uh, uh, infertile because they're homosexual. And this is actually turns out to be rather a good thing. And in most, um, natural societies, uh, homosexuality is just not even noticed. Um, if you live in Samoa or [01:14:30] something like that, um, they also, by the way, in Samoa look after teenage boys by making them look after their baby brothers and sisters, which is quite fun to watch sulky teenagers humping babies around. Um, so I, I think, uh, one of the problems with the Catholic Church, and of course, I I've long been a critic of it. Um, is that the marriage? Uh uh, Bond has been denied our clergy, and [01:15:00] this, by the way, is not a matter of faith or morals at all. It's merely an administrative convenience, because the Catholic church for hundreds and hundreds of years, uh, decided it did not wish to take responsibility for clerical families. Now, this is not universal. In the Lebanon, for example, in the east and right, Catholic priests marry and have Children and behave like normal people. Um, I was having a bit of an argument with my parish priest, uh, a few months ago, uh, about celibacy [01:15:30] and, um, the great evil that it has brought upon the church. Uh, in the case of the paedophilia cases which are now worldwide. And, uh, he said to me, uh, the lords will will prevail, and I said, Look, Father, you can't blame the good Lord for the behaviour of his servants, much less his clergy. Sort of a stony silence. And my sons gripped my elbow and steered me away. [01:16:00] Now I think that within the church. We have to, uh, fight back and claim the church because it belongs to us. And I feel, you know, my forebears built those cathedrals in Europe, were responsible for the great music and art of the Catholic Church, and and and and Saint Thomas just by way, uh, rescued Aristotle from oblivion. [01:16:30] And, uh, in the year between 304 100 AD, uh, San Augustine rescued, uh, Plato from oblivion. Although Plato was less wise choice because he was probably the first fascist philosopher. Sorry. Excuse me, I I'm sort of in the situation of cheering and answering. I think thank you so much. You've made some really interesting points, but let's make sure we have time for everybody to answer. Thank you. And if anyone wants to respond, [01:17:00] the defeat of Mitt Romney has emboldened me to make further comments about socially conservative people. I want first of all to address the point of view that some people have advanced that giving the right of marriage to gay people will somehow besmirch marriage will somehow ruin it. I [01:17:30] think the only people who can ruin marriage are people who are married themselves. My marriage is in fact, vulnerable only to what my wife and I do. We are the only ones who can be merchant No-one else can do that. So I I that's the first criticism. The second criticism is that so much of what comes from church circles comes from the evangelical, right, both of the Catholic Church and Protestant Church, uh, branches [01:18:00] of the church. And they have a saying in there, which they've picked, I think, out of context from something that attributed to Jesus that you've got to be born again. I think an earlier project which will yield a lot better results, was just grow up. OK, uh, question for all [01:18:30] three of you. Um, I'm just interested to hear what you'd have to say of if you all are. Supporters of this bill, um, were presented with a kind of situation that both have passed become law and gay couples are able to, you know, both members of the partnership be able to be legal guardians of Children. Um, how are [01:19:00] you going to protect the rights of the surrogate mom or dad? That's obviously necessary. Um, for that gay marriage to actually create Children. Do you mean in a situation of adoption or or or, you know, or adoption or whatever. Uh, well, um, [01:19:30] this is a it's It's an issue that's not strictly about, um this this bill, Um, because the, uh, the situation around is there's actually very little law a around it. And so the courts are scrambling to try and find some solutions, um, to legal problems that do come up. Uh, As you might know, I, uh, I have another bill, um, which actually will address surrogacy issues. And [01:20:00] and the fundamental recommendation of that of or fundamental point of that bill which follows the law commission's recommendation, is that when you're making decisions about adoption or about surrogacy or about guardianship has already exists in the care of Children act, the the paramount principle must be the best interest of the child. Um, and, uh, that's that's the basis that that, um that that my bill would would [01:20:30] address surrogacy issues on, um, my bill also would provide for for some particular rights and responsibilities around the around the person who is the surrogate mother of the child. Yeah. I just want we haven't spent a lot of time talking about Children. But one of the things that sort of surprises me about, um the reactions of people about, you know this will also make it possible for gay people to adopt Children is the sort of failure to recognise of a lot of people in New Zealand that a lot of a huge number of gay people are already bringing [01:21:00] up Children. Um, you know, either through, um, adopt adoption, but that's probably pretty rare. It's often through previous relationships that my partner, Claire and I are bringing up Andrew, but Andrew's dad still involved in our life. We have all sorts of complicated, um, and wonderful family relationships. Um, that already exist. And one of the things about civil unions and our marriage is that how I think it helps and strengthens the relationships that the the rights of Children growing up in New Zealand so that their parents' relationship is legally recognised. [01:21:30] And I know that the social recognition was really important for our son Andrew, Um, when Claire and I had our civil union here in Saint Andrews, and for I mean, he'd always been absolutely fine about us, but having that public celebration that support of our friends, our family and our congregation meant an enormous amount to him. And I think you can't underestimate how important it is to be able to say my parents are married. Um, you know, and your parents may not be, And that's fine, too, in New Zealand. Um, but for for those kids, that really is important. And it's a reality [01:22:00] that already exists in our society. We do need to finish now, so I just, um, want to because they do have to get back to their work. Um, but I want to say thank you so much. Um, Louisa and Kevin for participating in tonight and, um, for sharing what's going on and the thinking behind this. And I hope that this has been an opportunity, um, for all of you just to encourage engagement and conversation as you go through this. There's been so many issues in New Zealand where people have got polarised, um, around different things, [01:22:30] that really in the end, we've all got on and and managed to live with. And I hope that we can use this. Um, you know, when we go back to our friends and families over Christmas or whatever holiday we're celebrating that we engage in respectful conversation with one another and try to help, um, people understand what this is all about and how good it is for New Zealand society. So as we leave, I'm gonna ask Peter who to play a song. And it's a song by a, um evangelical, formerly evangelical Christian, I guess. No, he's still an evangelical Christian singer. Um, Ray Bolts. [01:23:00] He was, um, a big on the American, um, evangelical Christian music scene, I have to say. And then he came out and his, um, as often happens, and, um, I reckon his music has got heap better. Since he came out, he's been hanging out with some good people. Um, but he's been involved with the marriage equality movement in, um, the States. And this song actually takes the story of, um, Mildred and Richard loving as its starting point. And it talks about 1966 and their wedding and the people who are hoping for weddings now. So I know these [01:23:30] guys have to leave as we play it, but I invite you to listen and just to locate our story, um, within their story. And, um, and listen to the encouraging words. Thank you all very much for coming tonight.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags