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 evening. I'm Clay Nelson. And on behalf of Saint Matthew and the city and the Auckland Community Church, I want to thank you for being here and to welcome you. I know it takes some effort to be here at six o'clock, doesn't it? With traffic and all? No. Our apologies for the traffic. Um but I especially want to welcome our guests this evening. Louisa Wall [00:00:30] and Boris die. Um welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Before getting on with the programme a few housekeeping duties, the fire exits are Follow me wherever I go screaming if there's an emergency but the doors you came in, there's a side door over here. And if you go down the stairs where the loos are as well, there's an exit out of the building at that time [00:01:00] afterwards, courtesy of after the forum, courtesy of the Auckland Community Church. We have a little cup of and we can get to know each other a little better before introducing our guest speakers. I would just like to make a few comments on the topic under consideration. Marriage, equality, reflections on church and state. The focus on church and state explains why this forum is being held [00:01:30] in a church. It is being held in this church because of our historic support of the LGBT Q community and our unqualified support for passage of the Marriage Equality Act. As you might be able to tell, I'm an American and as an American, I'm a fervent believer in an Impenetrable I can't say the word, though Impenetrable wall of separation between church and state in the US, it [00:02:00] is the church that keeps trying to breach it, and it has succeeded too many times. In Aotearoa, New Zealand, the Bill of Rights calls for a separation. But there's a long tradition of Christian and Maori spiritual spirituality being included in Parliament schools and on public occasions. I've been an outspoken critic of some of these practises, especially in public schools, in particular the Bible and Schools programme. [00:02:30] I believe separation protects both the church and the state from abuses by others and allows for true freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Some of my own Anglican, some of from my own Anglican tradition and other Christian faith groups believe the Marriage Equality Act will force them to do marriages between same sex couples as you will hear in more detail tonight that it's not the case. No minister [00:03:00] celebrant is ever required to marry anyone. This has always been true and will not change with this act. So why do other Christian communities object to doing same sex marriages primarily because they claim it's unbiblical and will harm traditional marriage? I won't dwell on this now, except to say there are all kinds of marriages, such as polygamy in the Bible, that do not meet our understanding of marriage. Today. Within our [00:03:30] Anglican tradition, we have moved from understanding marriage as being about procreation to being about making a loving commitment. Our understanding of marriage keeps evolving, and I suspect we will continue to do so. Passage of this act will just be one more step along the way of human evolution and understanding well enough for me. Let me introduce whom you've come to hear. [00:04:00] Well, she Before I do that, let me explain how the programme is going to go. Boris is going to do most speaking, I'm told. Then we're going to take questions from you all, and then Lua is going to do an update. So, uh, Louisa hardly needs any introduction, especially since her private member Bill uh for Marriage Equality was selected by lottery to be debated this year. Luis is the elected [00:04:30] member of parliament for man. That's one of the Maori words I can't say very well and is a current member of the Maori Affairs Select Committee. Lewis is also the Labour Party spokesperson for the Community and voluntary sector and the sports and recreation portfolios. Luisa is Ngati Tufa and I. [00:05:00] She's brought with her Boris teacher. Boris is the advocacy director of the LGBT Programme under the Human Rights Watch in New York. Boris is a native of the Netherlands and has served in their national congress for 12 years. As a member of parliament. During his tenure as its first openly gay member in parliament, he passed four private bills, something that has never been done before or since. It was his bill for marriage equality [00:05:30] that made the Netherlands the first country in the world to introduce marriage equality. This is just a sample of his many experiences that can enlighten us as to what to expect. If this bill passes, I ask you to warmly welcome Luisa and Boris course, it's all yours. [00:06:00] Thank you very much for your warm welcome. And thank you very much for being here on this wonderful, sunny day. I really appreciate that. Uh, we were stuck in traffic so I could have a good look out of Auckland because actually, that was the only time that I could see something about Auckland. Because for the rest during the programme, I have been inside in buildings, talking to people listening to people. So it was actually wonderful getting stuck in traffic and looking around [00:06:30] for me. It's very, um, uh, special to speak in a church. Uh, and while I was listening to you, I all of a sudden had to think about, um, something that happened to me when I was about I would say, seven or eight years old. I was raised Roman Catholic in the Netherlands, and every Monday morning, uh, at school, the priest would come to our class and would then talk about, uh, Sunday's [00:07:00] ceremony in church sermon and and then would ask about what we thought about, um, what the priest had said, and then one Monday morning, um, he was talking about, uh, the sermon and Then he asked if we wanted to become a priest later in life. And we were with many boys, seven or eight years old, and then he gave turns to everybody. And then the turn was coming to me and I was getting nervous and nervous. What should [00:07:30] I say? And I thought, Let's be honest. So when, um the turn, it was my turn. I said No, I was the only one because everybody wanted to become a priest and I said no and he was really shocked, and he said, Why not? And then I said, because priests cannot marry. And actually that is true for a Roman Catholic church. Um, and later on in life, when I started to work on marriage equality, I sometimes had to think about that [00:08:00] event because, um, the priest was upset with my answer, and he sent me out of the class and I had to wait in the corridor because I was disrupting the order of the class by saying no. But I still think I'm right because priests cannot get married anyway. Uh, all of a sudden I had to think about that while you were introducing me so It's an honour for me to speak in a church, and I would like to take you back to 1994 [00:08:30] when I was first elected in the Dutch Parliament as the first openly gay member of Parliament. And in my first debate with the minister of justice, I presented to plan the concept of marriage equality. And I said, I think the time is here now to introduce marriage equality, full equality for people of the same gender because it's a reflection of the principles of non discrimination [00:09:00] and equality. And in the beginning, in 1994 nowhere in the world people could get married of same sex. So it was rather a new idea, and people had to get used to it. Um, because we are in a church, I think it would be right to really emphasise how shocked people from different religions were Once this proposal had been published. [00:09:30] I got enormous amounts of letters of people saying My religion, uh, tells me that this is wrong. Um, God created Adam and Eve, and so a man and a woman and, um, history doesn't know any same sex marriages. So why would you want to introduce something so alien something so deviant into our tradition into our culture, into our country [00:10:00] and that really, uh, started a whole discussion. If churches or synagogues or mosques would be forced to conduct same sex marriages once civil marriage would have been introduced in the legislation, Um, it has been a very fierce debate, and sometimes people got very, very emotional, so emotional that I received [00:10:30] death threats also from the religious communities. And I had to be guarded by bodyguards. Um, simply because people were upset that such a new concept would be introduced into our society. And I remember, um, when we were discussing the bill in Parliament, the leader of the Orthodox Christian political party. It's a very [00:11:00] small political party, but it's the oldest one in the Netherlands. And by the way, it's a political party that doesn't allow women to have an official function. And it's really something weird in a country like the Netherlands that that party still exists. But anyway, that's the case and that leader in the political debate a final debate, he said, The wrath of God will be [00:11:30] upon you because you have introduced this devious act into our society and God will punish you and all those members of parliament who would vote in favour of it. Fortunately, we had a huge majority of the bill and I remember because I lived in Amsterdam and the Parliament is in The Hague so late at night. I think it was two in the morning. I had to go back by car from The Hague [00:12:00] to Amsterdam, which is, let's say, one hour's drive. And I was so shocked by, you know, the spell that I thought I have to drive very, very carefully because just imagine if I would get an accident, people would think Well, see, God has punished him. So I was driving so slowly that I became really a danger on the road and people started to hunk let go fast, fast. Anyway, um, the bill has passed, and in 2001 [00:12:30] on the first of April, it was implemented. And the interesting thing is that once people got used to two men or two women getting married, you know, all the fear and all the concerns actually evaporated. And what we see now is that many members of Parliament from the Christian parties who voted against marriage equality have now changed sides [00:13:00] and acknowledged publicly that they were wrong, or at least that they changed their minds. And they are now in favour of same sex marriage. In 2007, the Christian Coalition gained power and, uh, the biggest political party at the time. The Christian Democratic Party started to govern with another small Christian Orthodox, uh, political party, And that party had, in its party manifesto, the repeal [00:13:30] of same sex marriage and mind you. Then we had, uh, same sex marriages already for about seven years. So everybody was a little concerned what would happen once they would start governing. But on their first press conference, they said, We've thought about this. We have the repeal of same sex marriage in our party manifesto, but we've seen so many gay couples, lesbian couples getting married, becoming happy, vowing [00:14:00] responsibility, love commitment to one another. And those are actually values that we support from our religion. So we decided to let it be, we will not repeal the same sex marriage act, and I thought that was really a watershed moment because from that moment on, actually, it's not so much a discussion anymore. Everybody has accepted marriage equality into the Dutch society. It's an integral part of society, [00:14:30] and it's is there and it will be there. So I'm very glad that that happened. Um, we are now in 2012. So it's 11.5 years after the introduction of the same sex marriage act, and we see that in society, people really understand and and feel that this is something that is there and is there to stay. About one year ago, I went to a birthday party and some [00:15:00] young kids came to me and said, Is it true that in the last century, uh, gay people could not get married? I said, Yes, that's true And he said, But it's discrimination And then I said, Yeah, and that's why we changed the law. And it's actually so wonderful to see that a whole generation now is growing up and they don't understand that there was a time that this was not possible. So that shows you that once people get used to [00:15:30] a new concept and see that people are happy and that there is no revolution that will break out and that God did not punish the Netherlands and we did not fall into a moral abyss, as several people predicted. Then life goes on and people are OK with it and we can focus on other issues and we need to focus on other issues because sometimes people think, you know, once you have marriage, [00:16:00] equality and full equality for LGBT people and other people that there is no problem in society anymore. And that's of course not true people will always discriminate. And so we have to be very alert and mindful that that we will address those issues because even though we have same sex marriage and all kinds of other provisions in Dutch legislation, so there's not so much to [00:16:30] achieve in terms of legislation anymore. There are still young people who commit suicide, for instance, because they are gay or lesbian and they find themselves very isolated from the rest of society and thinking about discrimination. There are many forms of discrimination, but the difference between um being born in an ethnic minority group, for instance, is [00:17:00] that, um you are together with your family and you're all from the same ethnic minority, and you are discriminated, maybe from outside, but you have each other, and you feel safe in your own environment. But when you are gay or lesbian or transgender and you find your identity, um, usually when you're young you're on your own because you have to tell your parents, your brothers, your sisters, your environment and sometimes those environments [00:17:30] can be very hostile. And so it's very important, Um, as a young person, when you come out that you understand that you are part of society. And actually I think that is one of the most wonderful effects of marriage. Equality in the Netherlands is that young people, when they come out, they feel they are protected or supported by the law. Because the law says you are equal and there is no difference [00:18:00] between you or a heterosexual person. You can even get married with a partner of the same gender. And that helps people understanding that although they are different from the majority in terms of sexual orientation or gender identity, that the law is on their side. And that's a psychologically very important step, Um, internationally. After 2001, many other countries followed. [00:18:30] Um and I've been active in same sex marriage campaigns in Belgium and Argentina and also in Australia, where, as you know, same sex marriage was voted down. Um, but the interesting thing is that in each of those countries, when the proposal has been done in parliament, the same kind of discussion erupts. And actually, today Louise and I went to Wellington to the committee that was hearing [00:19:00] submissions, oral submissions about the marriage, her marriage equality act. Um, we heard exactly the same arguments like, uh, 15 years ago in the Netherlands, about Adam and Eve, and about why it's so important that only heterosexual people can get married. Even one of the members of Parliament was a very interesting question to me. Asked me, How do gay people or lesbian people how do they get Children? And I thought, What [00:19:30] does he want to know from me? You know? And so I tried to give an answer, and then he got back to me and he asked it again and again. And I felt well, does he want to know technically, how people can get Children? That my task now to explain that to him? Unfortunately, the chair of the committee then said, Well, this is actually an out of order, so I got away with it. But it was remarkable that the same type [00:20:00] of arguments, um, were, um, were actually presented by many people who gave oral submissions, as in the Netherlands or in those other countries where I attended those, uh, marriage equality campaigns. Um, but the But the interesting thing is that in the 11 countries where marriage equality has been achieved, um, there are no problems, actually, and even religious people who were against marriage [00:20:30] equality they accept that it's there, that it's the law, a democratic process has taken place and we move on. So there is a lot of fear before something has been introduced. But that's my message, actually. But once it's there, people get used to it and move on, and it's part of society. What I thought was very hopeful and interesting was on the sixth of November, when in the United States, [00:21:00] the presidential elections took place, that also in three states Maine, Maryland and Washington state people had a referendum about marriage equality and in those three states for the first time in the world, actually by popular vote. People just went to the ballot and voted in favour of marriage equality. So in that case, there was no parliament or there was no court decision. It was just the majority of the people who said yes. Our fathers, [00:21:30] our mothers, our brothers, our sisters, our sons, our daughters. Everybody can be gay or lesbian, so why not give them the right the right, that we have the right of marriage equality. So I think it's a good time to stop now and see if there are some questions. Do you agree? Ok. Oh, I'd like to hear that. Thank you. Well, thank you for your attention. By the way, if you have a question, we need to use the mic. [00:22:00] So Sorry. Hi. Um, as you you'll probably know in New Zealand, the Civil Union Act was passed in 2004, and, um, since then we've had civil unions and much of what you said about the opposition of the opponents of essentially the opponents of gay people. Let's be honest, um has [00:22:30] evaporated. And some even who were opposed to civil unions would say Well, now we've actually got legal status for, um, Gay people. There's no need for gay marriage. So from your perspective, you went from, I think, having a civil partnership legislation in the Netherlands to your legislation to have gay marriage. And you must have some experience of why it was important [00:23:00] to make that change. Yes. Well, thank you for your question. Um, at the time in 1994 when I started a discussion about marriage equality in the Netherlands, there was no civil union or registered partnership, as we call it. Um, it was in, in in Scandinavia and so we thought, Well, maybe marriage equality is too big a step, So let's first start with civil unions. And, um, the funny thing was that once the [00:23:30] civil Union act was introduced and people went to the municipality to have their, um uh, relationship, um, recognised by the state When they got out of the municipality building, they said, Aha, we are married and everybody was talking about marriage while it was not a marriage but a civil union. So the step to reach a marriage equality was actually not so big because many people thought, But we do have marriage equality already, don't we? And then we [00:24:00] had to explain. No, it's a civil union and they thought, Oh, but if it's almost the same, why not take the next step? But, um, like what happened this morning, Uh, for the committee and one of the religious opponents of marriage, Equality said. I have to admit that I was against civil unions, but now that we have them, OK, it's fine. I'm in favour of it. But now I'm against marriage equality. And so one of the members [00:24:30] of parliament asked. But once we introduce marriage equality, maybe you will be then in favour of marriage equality. And he didn't really have a clear answer, He said. I hope that marriage will stay a bond between a man and a woman, which is not a real answer, I thought. But we've seen the same thing happen in the Netherlands that the opponents of the Civil Union, usually out of religious reasons once we had it, they used that as an argument against marriage equality because the [00:25:00] gays and the lesbians they have their separate thing. So why should they need to enter? Um, civil marriage? Is that a answer to your question? Pretty good. Thank you. to, um, in this country, you probably heard already. Um, much of the debate against marriage. Equality is actually by people who don't like gays. Anyway, Um, [00:25:30] and this is the latest stage upon which to make that clear. Uh, and it is true that some have got used to civil union. Um, and I think I can say that in my debates within the church, it's now clear that even some of the more conservative evangelical members of, um, the churches have at last accepted that gay rights are here and have to be accepted. So now we have to quote, find a way [00:26:00] to live with differences, which is quite a step forward, actually. But on the marriage issue, that's still quite concrete. And it's unfortunately, based on a misunderstanding of marriage, um, people seem to think that Jesus or God or somebody started marriage and worked it out. Um, so we and this is I'm leading up to a question. One of the things is that the education process within [00:26:30] the community about the basis of marriage or those things which have contributed to marriage because marriage is actually only fairly fairly recent, you know, four or 500 years long. What in other countries, what processes have been used in that education in the general community and all the churches? Um, has it been always the confrontation thing [00:27:00] or the submission thing? Has it been primary focused on schools? I mean, how did it happen? It was a long preamble to a question at the end. Get what I'm asking. Yes, I get what you're saying. How did it happen? Well, actually, um, there was no debate in the Netherlands about marriage equality until I started it immediately in parliament. So there was not, um, a basis of, [00:27:30] um, you know, as society, civil society, uh, demonstrating, marching in front of parliament and saying we demand, uh, marriage equality. So it was something which landed upon the people, and so it was a shock, and that's why we started talking about it. But public debate in the media, especially, um, you know, is very important so that people pick it up and start talking about it at home. And, um, the most important thing [00:28:00] I would say is to, um, avoid fear mongering. That's actually what it was, because deliberately, there were people, you know, trying to make other people afraid by saying things that are not true. And actually, I also see that here in New Zealand, when I we heard it on the radio when we got stuck in traffic, there was this piece on the news about the committee this morning [00:28:30] and we heard somebody say People are forced to conduct same sex marriages in churches. The celebrants don't have any choice. It's obligatory, which is really not true when you read Louis Equality uh, Marriage, Equality Act. So there is distortion of what is going on simply because people don't like the result, the end result. And they try to instigate fear and concerns with people. [00:29:00] So it's very important not necessarily in schools or in the educational system, but in the public discourse to really stick to the facts. What is a marriage equality Act? Well, it's civil marriage, and there is a distinction between civil marriage, marriage and religion, the church, and so we need to keep that in mind, and maybe Louisa will talk about it later. But I think it's very important to simply stick to the facts [00:29:30] and present the facts, and then hopefully that will be picked up. Hey, um um, in New Zealand, um, we've got under, like in criminal law. Um, they define rape as a man raping a woman, and they have a similar, um, crime for a man rape, raping a man. But it's not called rape because of the history between the word of the rape. And so you have an unlawful sexual connection. [00:30:00] Um, and what I was wondering that's been criticised in New Zealand because the way it's interpreted by courts is not in keeping with rape, even though the starting sentence is the same. Um, a similar argument is why we shouldn't just be OK with the Soviet Union. We want full marriage equality because it's not been interpreted the same. But wouldn't would it be so difficult to leave the historical term marriage and instead of a Marriage Equality Act [00:30:30] to completely, um, remove the gender definition within marriage, perhaps say, well, a civil union should be interpreted to be the same legal status if if we change the way it's interpreted, if we are positively legislated to say this is how civil union should be interpreted to be the same, would that still be a lesser outcome than full marriage. Equality? Well, I think the word [00:31:00] marriage has a certain meaning in life. And people understand. It's about love and commitment, responsibility. And if you say OK for gay people, lesbian people, we are going to do something else, or we name it something else. Then it's like that concept of love, commitment, responsibility sharing is not ok for lesbians and gays. And I don't see why we should lessen ourselves or make [00:31:30] it less important for the LGBT community are part of this society. We are here to stay, We belong. And we are as good as everybody else or as bad as everybody else. Because there are also terrible gay men and terrible lesbian women. But we are here, and so I don't think we should make any distinction. Hi. Welcome. Thank you for coming here today. Um, this [00:32:00] has been eye opening, and, um, I'm sure we're all learning. Um, well, I am. Anyway, I don't know if you guys are a little bit more. Um, I don't want to be a downer, but I find this is never talked about when it comes to this debate, and I'd like to bring it up singers. You've had, uh, same sex marriages, Uh, and the Netherlands for about over 10 years. Marriages don't always work. And there [00:32:30] will. There will have been some divorces coming through the legal system from those marriages, which is sad, but to be expected. Um, when it comes to marriage equality, a lot of people would argue that traditional marriage is not a marriage of equals anyway, because you have, you know, different gender and different expectations. I'd like to know what's happening on that end of it and in Holland. And my [00:33:00] question is, is it affecting the way people think about marriage itself? When they does the falling apart of them affect the way they see traditional. You know, men, women, marriages, same sex marriages for me, I. I would think that all this would be being questioned now because, you know, traditionally back in the olden days when a couple divorces, the man gets this and the woman gets that and the woman gets preference [00:33:30] for you know all of those things. You know, child, Um who keeps the Children all that kind of thing. Uh, you guys must be going through this right now. I mean, it's probably not the time to talk about it. But if we have foresight, I just I was wondering how the impact that it is having on the legal system and on society there now. Well, when I proposed marriage equality, uh, one of the fiercest opponents was the LGBT community, or at [00:34:00] least part of the LGBT community. And they came to the to parliament and and they wanted to talk to me and they were very upset. And they said to me, Why do you want to reinforce the institution of marriage? Because it's unbalanced and especially women, um, are not really taken care of in a marriage. Um, and now you want to reinforce it by opening it up for, um, LGBT people. I always said it's a matter of choice. [00:34:30] If you don't want to get married first, you need to have the choice, and then you can say no, no, I'm not forcing anybody to get married. Um, it might be a little bit too early, but it might be that now that every year hundreds of LGBT couples get married that that reflects on, Let's say, the broader group of people who get married. And it might be that when two men or two women get married, they are more [00:35:00] each other's equals in a relationship than the traditional man who is going out to work and the woman who has to stay at home and taking care of the kids. And it might be that in the course of time that might influence the balance of, let's say, power of the balance of opposite genders in the institution of marriage. And maybe in the long run, I don't know. But it might be that people want to redefine [00:35:30] marriage or maybe rewrite the law and maybe make it much more simple and much more direct so that it's a bond between two people and the law gives it some legal consequences. And that's it. Yes, uh, got a couple of little questions. First, I would just like to make a little theological comment. Um, [00:36:00] I'm speaking from the perspective of 30 years research into homosexuality and the publication of two encyclopaedias. And in the course of the research, I came across something that the creative act God creating the world or humanity was male to male. God created Adam and Eve comes out of Adam and this came up in the Kabbalah, the Jewish Kabbah. Here's a book called The Erotic. [00:36:30] The Erotic Kala. The Erotic of the Kabbalah. Um, and you could look at Michelangelo's painting of the last, you know, the two hands. However, um, the the way I see, I'm just asking. I'm thinking further ahead because I think the the marriage debate is, uh, it's really been one. The battle is you know, we're nearly there, not all everywhere in [00:37:00] the world, but in the United States. After the 2003 Lawrence versus Texas case, they can't. It will not be upheld A against gay marriage. The issues that I see from my research and I've also visited the Kinsey Institute and done research There are puberty. I think that is the crucial. That is much more important than gay marriage. And in many ways, the hysteria about gay marriage [00:37:30] is nothing to the hysteria about puberty. And, um, the question is, I suppose how do you see this coming up in the future and allied with? I mean, I also want to make clear here that there are very different legal ages of sexual consent as I pointed out to you yesterday, 13 in Japan and everybody's gonna be horrified when I say this. But I found out recently that the legal age of consent for sex in Delaware [00:38:00] was seven in the last century and it was 10 in many other US states. Now, anyway, um, the next point I want to ask about is pornography or erotica. It seems to me pretty horrifying that people get chucked into jails For years. It was a sensational case in Australia for looking at erotica. I mean, if this is also horrifying, [00:38:30] why don't the authorities go after the people who are making this horrifying stuff? And I'll just give one little example here If you type in the words Japan and gay on the Internet, see what comes up on the first page. When I looked at it, I thought, My God, you know, I'll be in jail for 30 years. But this this obviously comes from Japan anyway, what do you see about the P? How do you see the puberty issue coming up and the legal [00:39:00] age of sexual consent? And also, what are your comments on the erotica? Wow, that's really a tough question because I cannot really look into the future that much. Um, the age of consent differs from country to country, and sometimes in country it differs from male to male sex or opposite [00:39:30] sex. I would argue, as a representative of Human Rights Watch that we think it should be the same age. There should not be a distinction between homosexual acts or heterosexual acts in terms of the age of consent. But I also think that it should be allowed to countries to states to societies to define that [00:40:00] in their context. It might be 14 and somewhere else in the world. It might be 15 or 16. I don't have any strong feelings about that, so I don't see. But I cannot really look into the future. But I don't see that there is a world, a global movement, trying to have the same age, minimum age, for instance, everywhere in each country. The same. I don't know. I don't have any strong feelings about that about pornography. [00:40:30] It's it's unrelated to marriage equality, of course. Um, but as a former judge and lawyer criminal lawyer, I would say that sometimes the people who make pornography are really making use of Children, for instance, or people in disability disabled people or people in a very vulnerable situation simply to make profits by selling the pornography. [00:41:00] And so I think it's very important to look at what is behind the what is the intention of pornography. And so I can understand that there are societies where they want to criminalise, uh, pornography, or at least penalise it and are quite strict with it. It all depends, of course, on on on the subject on what is happening. But I'm not a proponent of saying everything should be [00:41:30] free and because that might endanger people in a vulnerable situation. Now, you had a third question, which I forgot. Yes, pardon. OK, good. Then I tried to give you an answer and the best I could do, um, I just heard said about the celebrants [00:42:00] that they can choose to marry uh, people from the same sex. Um, and it's kind of been over light footed, but I don't I know that in the Netherlands, it's a huge discussion and has been and still is going on. I think about celebrants who refuse to marriage. Yeah, there is a different system, so it's a little bit different, difficult to compare. But in the Netherlands we have, uh, celebrants who are employees of the state, and each municipality has those celebrants. [00:42:30] And, um, they are obliged, of course, to conduct marriages. When we introduced the same sex marriage bill, there were a few religious celebrants, but they are state employees, and they said when we started to do this job, there was no marriage equality, and we have religious objections against this. So we would like to have an exemption. And so we said, OK for those people who [00:43:00] are already celebrants, they can have an exemption and they can say, OK, I don't want to conduct a a same sex marriage, but for all new people that the state would hire, we would say, Of course, everybody who is an employee of the state has to execute the law. So there is a very small group of people who still do not conduct same sex marriages. The question is, [00:43:30] is this a problem in society? And actually, in those 11 years, it happened only twice that a couple really wanted to be married by a celebrant who said, but I don't want to conduct your marriage. So it is a little weird that when you get married that you choose a celebrant who is uncomfortable with it. Because mostly when you prepare your marriage, you go to the municipality and you have a conversation. And it happens that if a celebrant [00:44:00] is not comfortable with same sex couples, he would say, Or she would say, I'm not available, but my colleague is, And so then you have your conversation with a colleague, so it's a very principled discussion, but in reality it's not really a problem. And the problem will go away because no new celebrants are hired by the state who before they are hired, say well, but we don't want to execute same sex marriages. [00:44:30] I have a question, Um, have any of the churches or other religions in the Netherlands, um, made room in there to do the marriages in their sanctuaries? Well, I remember that in the beginning, there was no church or denomination who said Yes. We want to have, [00:45:00] uh, same sex marriages in our church, But, uh, during the years, uh, several of them, um, did so and are very active, actually, in promoting that. For instance, I've attended several, um, marriages, Um, in the old Catholic Church. So that's not the Roman Catholic Church, But the old Catholic Church and, um, they even have priests who are openly gay, um, and are married [00:45:30] themselves or in a in a gay relationship openly. So there have been and I don't know the terms in English, but in Dutch, we have different denominations which are very open and comfortable, like your congregation with LGBT people. And they are married in church where also opposite sex couples get married. Maybe it's time to listen to the author [00:46:00] of the bill. Louisa. See that Louisa is writing down a lot of notes. So she has some very interesting stuff to tell us. I guess. Yes. So, ladies and gentlemen, it's my honour to introduce a wonderful member of Parliament, somebody who I really admire and who inspired me during this week. Um, the fabulous Louisa Wall. [00:46:30] Uh uh. I want to acknowledge, uh, my parliamentary colleague, the Honourable, who has travelled up from the Waikato, uh, to be with us today. I want to acknowledge Clay, and I particularly want to acknowledge you, uh, as of Saint Matthew's in the city. Um, I want to acknowledge Glenn Cary, who's not here. [00:47:00] Uh, who has been, I think an amazing, uh, advocate for, uh, not only, uh, LGBTI rights, but also the rights of any marginalised group in our society. And it's, um it's wonderful to have had Boris, uh, share his time with us. Um, Boris is an amazing man, and, um uh, I think he's really understated. Uh, his qualification. So, uh, as a as a man who studied law, [00:47:30] uh, and then became a judge and then entered Parliament and is now working at Human Rights Watch International. His whole career has been built on fighting for the rights of our community. And I'd like to thank you, Boris. And I know Boris, uh, if he was in New Zealand would probably be called Sir Boris Dietrich because he was honoured by, uh, Queen Beatrice, uh, the monarch of, uh, of, uh, the Netherlands for his work, [00:48:00] Uh, for the people of not only the Netherlands, but now the world. So, Boris, I really appreciate, um, the context that you've shared with us in terms of the evolution of marriage equality, because actually uh, we are in a process of evolution. Um, and my contribution really, um is about, um, a bill, Another bill that I could have submitted. Um and I do want to acknowledge that yesterday we were at Auckland Law School. [00:48:30] Uh, and, um, the convenor of the session that Boris took at Auckland Law School was Justice Ted Thomas and Ted Thomas. I believe in 1998 was an incredibly brave man. Uh, because in the quilter decision, uh, he basically said that there is discrimination in the law and we need to sort it out. Um, so for those of you who don't know just a quick history because we haven't really talked about the fundamental [00:49:00] first principle, uh, which is homosexual law reform? So in 1986 when New Zealand as a country decriminalised homosexuality, uh, Boris, that process took 12 years. It was first begun in New Zealand in 1974 by Vin Young, who was a member of the National party. Uh, but it took 12 years before New Zealand changed, uh, its crimes act and no, and made homosexuality no longer a crime for men. So what? We have to remember in this [00:49:30] whole discourse is it's never been illegal, uh, for women, uh, to practise homosexuality. Because apparently Queen Victoria didn't think two women could have sex, but, um, actually, we all know that we can. Oh, yes. What? And, um, and so it the the evolution of in terms of our own history in in New Zealand started in 86. And at that time, we know we wanted to extend, um, in terms of our Human Rights Act, Uh, under [00:50:00] section 21 1 of the grounds you can't discriminate, uh, on is sexual orientation. Now, that took us, uh, another. What was it? Seven years of my maths is right, because it didn't happen in New Zealand until 1993. And then, um, 10 years post homosexual law reform. So in 1995 3 lesbian couples went to the local the local registrar because they had we'd had 10 years of homosexuals being able to live open, honest lives. It was no longer a crime. [00:50:30] And so three lesbian couples tried to get a marriage licence. Uh, that marriage licence was denied, which led to the quilter decision. Now, in 1998 when that decision came out, uh, the government, um, was basically, uh, was exposed to them, that there was an anomaly in the in the law, and our response at that time was to create civil unions. And I think what's really important in the progression is that we actually look at, [00:51:00] uh, where we wanted to go, which ultimately was marriage equality. But to get there, we had to have civil unions. And, um, I do have some statistics, everybody, because we have 9429 registered celebrants in New Zealand, of which there are two types. You have independent celebrants, and people who want to be celebrants have to apply. And, um, they have to, uh then through a registration process, be, uh, registered as celebrants. And [00:51:30] then we have organisational celebrants. So each of the major denominations in lists of the ministers in, uh, to internal affairs, Um, but the interesting thing in terms of the, um because we don't have two types of, uh, marriages and, uh, New Zealand, Boris, we basically, um, the state issues a licence. Um, to a couple that wants to marry, you have to pay 100 and $22.60. And then, essentially, with your licence, you find somebody who wants to marry [00:52:00] you, and it's either an independent celebrant or it's a organisational celebrant. But most of the weddings that are performed in New Zealand and on average there's about 20,000. 70% of those marriages are performed by independent celebrants. Only 30% of marriages performed in New Zealand are performed in a religious context. So, in fact, most people who are marrying today don't marry in a church they marry, uh, at on a beach they marry in a garden, [00:52:30] which is what my brother did and in fact, the last marriage I went to, which was my partner, Pru's niece. They married at Tarango Zoo. So the reality of today is a lot of the discussions we're having and the difference between civil and religious marriage. People are actually choosing, uh, because they have the ability to choose a celebrant and to and to choose the context of that marriage for themselves. So I think that um yeah, there's a bit of fallacy about [00:53:00] the number of people that are demanding for churches to marry them in the first place and the other context in New Zealand. That is that unfortunately, we're having, on average, uh, about 9000 divorces a year. So most of the opposite sex couples that are marrying actually are ending up divorcing. Um, we haven't got the statistics. I was just checking, actually, because we on average, we're having about 300 civil unions a year. Uh, 25% [00:53:30] of opposite sex couples we have about, um, just working out about 30% from people who come from overseas. But I don't know at the moment what the rates of divorce are within the context of civil union, but from my understanding, there isn't a lot of divorce within that context. So if we want to look at how, uh, people of the same sex marrying is going to affect the whole institution [00:54:00] of marriage, In fact, I think the statistics will prove that the institution of marriage practised by he, uh um, opposite sex. New Zealanders is already, uh, bringing the institution into disrepute. And in fact, it might be non heterosexual New Zealanders that will bring the institution back to what it is all about, which is commitment family. Um, and it is about finding the your partner, your life, partner. Now, I've had a civil union. Uh, I've found my life partner, [00:54:30] but I've had more than one partner in my life. I've had I've had two others, but at no time in those relationships did I ever think about formalising my relationship. Now, when I did, I had a civil union. And so for me, it is for life. And I'm sure for many people who take the ultimate step to formalise their relationship, we all do it with the intention of it being for life. What I, um, wanted to contribute, um, as well to the discussion tonight was, [00:55:00] um when I was drafting the bill, there was another proposition put forward, um, and that was to define a person. So in the marriage act, only people can get married. And so I thought about defining a person A person is a person, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. So what that would have meant was that actually what we would have been discussing was our homosexuals people. And let's get to the [00:55:30] That's the crux of the issue that there are people of religious faith who believe that homosexuals, uh, don't deserve to live. That's the reality. And in fact, that's the reality of a bill that is before the Ugandan parliament. It's a private members bill. It's called the anti homosexuality Bill. Uh, it's a members bill that initially proposed to kill homosexuals because homosexuals aren't people. And actually, that's I think, [00:56:00] at the heart of a lot of the opposition, uh, to any bill that looks at equality is that fundamentally within religious institutions, people still harbour. And I think that actually was talked about today at the select Committee, uh, that homosexuals aren't people. And so we're not human beings. We don't deserve the same rights and privileges as of other citizens. Well, we've had that debate and discussion in New Zealand. We had that [00:56:30] in 1986 and I know a lot of you are thinking that's ridiculous. But I actually think that for a lot of the, uh, the, um, religious community who oppose, and I want to acknowledge that there's a lot of in the religious community like Glenn like Clay. Uh, like Margaret, Maman and many others. Ian. Um, but there are, um other people who fundamentally still don't believe in the first. The first principle, uh, that homosexuality is a normal, uh, disposition [00:57:00] that in fact, uh, God made all of us. And I can understand why God has to continue to make homosexuals for people not to realise that he's not he or she or aren't making a mistake, that actually we exist because we're meant to. And so, um, the discussions that we're having uh, yeah, I think fundamentally, uh, are about issues to do with that. And I think they are also the issues that other our new New Zealanders, for [00:57:30] example, who come from, uh, have the heritage identities either in the Pacific or other parts of the world, where fundamentally homosexuality is still unacceptable. And in fact, that the biggest problem we have in the Pacific because in Samoa and Tonga, homosexuality is still a crime. And actually, Boris would be able to talk, uh, about that a bit more because that's, uh, a major focus of his work. We have 100 and 93 countries who are member states of the United Nations, and of those 76 countries [00:58:00] still decriminalise homosexuality. And so that's um, I think, uh, a base battle that we're still having to confront. Uh, and the other issue that's starting to emerge globally, uh is that countries like Uganda who were colonised by the British. A lot of the laws that we have in our countries were imported by the British, And so there's still a lot of laws around sodomy, for example, that were British laws that have remained and so now have an independent [00:58:30] country, uh, in Uganda. Um, their representatives are elected by a democratic process, but they have laws on the statute book that actually are about are about British, uh, laws, Uh, from a different era. They, um, are going to be debating the anti homosexuality bill, Uh, either later this or be next week now, but it's on the order paper. Um, but one of the interesting developments is that, um, there have been religious groups [00:59:00] based in the United States that have lost the battle in the United States and are losing it. And I think the three referenda that Boris, uh, talked about earlier, and and actually what we have to remember about the referenda that happened was the referendum question was was, uh do you agree to, uh, the state of Maine issuing marriage licences to same sex couples? So, in fact, it wasn't about Do you support gay marriage? It was Do you agree to the state issuing a marriage [00:59:30] licence, which is exactly the, uh, the the arguments that we're having here in New Zealand? Um, So what's happened, though, in places like Uganda is that they've said that homosexuality is not a part of the Ugandan culture. And so the colonisation of those people, uh, who were colonised by a colony or by superpowers like, um, the UK. Like, um, we were, um They've now come to a point where [01:00:00] because this phenomenon is really a Western society driven phenomenon around marriage equality, uh, that they now see countries like the UK or the US saying to Uganda, you can't create this anti homosexuality bill. Is the West telling them what to do? Is the West um now trying to, uh, implement spent their value system on them and now saying that homosexuality never existed, uh, in Uganda. [01:00:30] And so a lot of the indigenous culture is being suppressed. Uh, which is incredibly fascinating when you consider, uh, that they just like we had, um, have in New Zealand. And we had, uh we have and and a lot of our stories we have, uh, expressions of that. And in fact, uh, who's a leading Maori academic has written a book about it, uh, had a our lover. [01:01:00] And so there are lots of myths and legends that we are revitalising, uh, within our indigenous culture. But the world is at a really interesting place. Uh, when places like Uganda can say, uh, that in fact, the West is trying trying to, uh, tell them what to do because they're saying to them that, um that that, uh, discriminating against homosexual, uh, citizens is not a good thing. So anyway, it's just been quite [01:01:30] interesting. Um, now, where we're at with the bill is that, uh we had an overwhelming number of submissions, and I think the final analysis might be close to 30,000 submissions. On the bill, we had 10,160 submissions through the marriage equality website. Uh, what that's meant for the Select committee is that they have made a decision whether we like it or not, that any submission that either came through the Marriage Equality [01:02:00] website or the Protect Marriage website. They are considering as a form submission. And I know that some people are going to be really upset about it. But the select committee are going to be reporting back to Parliament on the 28th of February. And so they are hearing as many submissions as they can. But they had to make a decision about what was formed. And so if you've seen a submission through, uh, that website, then it's highly unlikely, um, for [01:02:30] you to be heard. And I know that many people wanted to be heard, but the committee is committed to hearing as many people as possible. And so because they've made that decision, it means that, um I'm not sure of the total number of, um, submissions they will hear. Uh, but today they were in Wellington. I'm not sitting on the select committee. Um, I've chosen to stand outside of the process. I know that a number of other MP S who have bills choose to sit on the select committee. [01:03:00] Um, but when Boris and I went into the select committee room this morning, there was somebody, uh talking specifically about me and saying that if marriage was so fundamental, then why am I not going to get married if the marriage legislation goes through? And anyway, this isn't about me personally. And so, um, I've decided I won't sit on those, Um, and on those select committee hearings, but because of that, I actually can't have access to any information as and I will attest to only [01:03:30] the select committee have access to the submissions to the programme and all that sort of thing. So a lot of people have asked When are they going to come to Auckland? I can't tell you at the moment, but I'm going to try and find out. And they definitely will come to Auckland. Um, so I know the select committee will be hearing right up until, um, Parliament rises, uh, just before Christmas, And I know that they're going to come back, um, mid January. So if any of you have made a submission, then, [01:04:00] um, please contact the clerk of the Government administration Select Committee. If you haven't been, uh, contacted. Uh, because they will be trying to, um, set appointments for people to be heard. Uh, now So if any of you particularly want to be heard and you haven't been contacted and you've made a submission, and then that's what I recommend you do. Um but I'm happy to take questions as well. Um, Clay, thank you. Um, just thank you all for being here. Um, I think you're here because, [01:04:30] like, uh, Boris and I, you're passionate about marriage equality, but fundamentally, uh, you're passionate about human rights and equality and non-discrimination because the question that you asked, um, the young gentleman at the back about, um if we gave all the same rights, um, of civil Union to, um, of married couples to civil union couples. Would that be enough? And, um, I don't believe it is because as citizens of the country, [01:05:00] we are entitled to all the institutions, uh, that the state has and to limit the ability of anybody to make a choice, which is essentially what this bill will allow, uh is discrimination and is it tolerable in a modern democratic society to discriminate against any of our citizens? And that's what I've said to them. You can actually correct all the legislation around civil unions to make sure that civil unions, uh, couples can adopt, um, and [01:05:30] everything else, But fundamentally, a discrimination would still exist. And is it tolerable? And do we have different types of citizenship? That was the other question that I asked. Have you got a question? And I thank you. Thank you, Boris. And my question is, given the overwhelming, uh, parliamentary support for the bill. Do you anticipate further refinements to your bill [01:06:00] to broaden the parliamentary support when it goes through the third reading stage? Uh, it's a really good question. Um, what I've been really clear about from, um, the start of this conversation that we're having is that we want to, um, eliminate all forms of discrimination in our society. But at the same time, we have to recognise the the rights that people have to believe in their religion. So freedom of religion versus freedom from discrimination. [01:06:30] Now, one of the things that's come out, um is that possibly, uh, there is an obligation on a celebrant to marry same sex couples if the bill goes through, because the argument now is that you will be performing a public function and so as a public and in terms of a public good or servant? Uh, service. You wouldn't then be able to, uh, make the decision not to Because, uh you will be There will be a conflict [01:07:00] between the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act. So what I've basically said all along is that I don't want ministers or celebrants to go to jail. I don't want them to do anything that they don't want to. So one of the principles of this is about choice. And so I want to uphold the the the choice that celebrates and ministers have to marry whoever they want, for whatever reason. And they don't have to disclose what that reason is. And so if the bill needs to be [01:07:30] enhanced to ensure, uh, that ministers and celebrants are protected, then I've said to the select committee to the public to religious leaders. Then I'm happy for that to happen. I think that there are adequate protections under section 29 of the marriage act, which says that you're authorised, but not obliged. But there are other people who have different opinions. And so if the select committee decide that we need to further protect, uh, ministers, celebrants [01:08:00] uh, religious, uh, denominations from ever being forced to do something that they don't want to. Uh then, of course, I'm happy for that to happen, and that's what the select committee process is all about. And, um, I'm not proposing any amendments, but if that through that process that there are, uh, then I welcome it because it was certainly my intention right from the beginning, uh, to make sure that ministers have a choice and they that they're not obliged. [01:08:30] I clarify on this, um, I'm an anomaly. I am registered as a organisational celebrant. And I'm, as far as I know, the only stipendiary clergy who's also a civil union celebrant. So the Anglican Church in New Zealand, uh, will spend years trying to decide whether or not they're going to permit me to do marriages. But [01:09:00] as a civil union celebrant I am could be protected by from the church's wrath and allowed, uh, So are they still going to be called civil Union celebrates, or are they just gonna be called celebrates? Uh, at will, uh, will I be protected? Um, yes, you will, because we're not affecting the civil union act at all. And In fact, um, we have 537 [01:09:30] registered civil union celebrants. So we're still going to need civil union celebrants because the demand is there, Uh, not only currently from, uh, homosexual or non heterosexual couples, but heterosexual couples who don't want the marriage institution. They prefer the Civil Union one, so that will remain as it is. Um, And then what we will have is, um, marriage celebrants who will, uh, I guess, end up [01:10:00] by definition becoming on another list of celebrants who will choose, uh, to marry homosexual non heterosexual couples. And I know, for example, uh, that the Anglican Church is going through a process, and it's two years away. Your commission, which is being chaired by such, um, But what I know, um, about the Presbyterian Church, for example, is that when the General Assembly met, um, a month ago now they made a decision [01:10:30] not to support marriage equality. Uh, so a remit was passed that as a an an assembly, Uh, as a religious denomination, they do not support marriage equality. But what they did was to, uh, allow the ministers to make that choice for themselves. So I believe people like Margaret, uh, at Saint Andrews on the terrace. Uh, will also choose, uh, to solemnise a non heterosexual [01:11:00] marriages. So there will be, I believe, a religious marriage celebrants who will be willing to perform, uh, marriages for non heterosexual couples. And I think, as Boris said in the beginning, there were none. Uh, and then over time, uh, they have become more and more, and so for me, we're we're in a space of evolution. Uh, and so I'm not sure what your the reason I became a civil union celebrant [01:11:30] was so I could do the equivalent of him wedding in church. OK, so, uh, if there's going to be a third time No, I don't believe there'll be a third kind. I think there will be civil union celebrants and marriage celebrants. But because marriage celebrants aren't obliged, I think there will be a subgroup of marriage celebrants who are religious, uh, who will choose to perform, uh, marriages for non heterosexual couples. Thank you. Um, and I believe [01:12:00] that will also happen in the independent celebrant, um, area, because there's 1700 independent celebrants, and so some will choose, and some won't. But I think they'll end up being, You know, the people that people know are willing and able and and And that's the other thing about it. I can't understand the argument, Uh, for a couple wanting to force a celebrant or a minister to marry them because a marriage [01:12:30] is a celebration, why would you want somebody to marry you? Who doesn't fundamentally believe in your union? It's It's actually a ridiculous proposition. Unless somebody really wanted to make a point. But then it kind of undermines, uh, bringing your family and friends together in the first place. And I don't know anyone who'd do it just to do it to prove a point. Um, so yes. Sorry. Thank you. But, um, [01:13:00] it would be hard. You don't want to kind of shop around for a celebrant, you know? So how would you know? Well, I mean, on that list, would that be? And it will. You left around people? Yeah. I mean, in the reality when pro and I got married, we had a Maori woman celebrant because it fits with who We had a media. Um, So we got somebody who who we knew, and we also knew that there would be, um, now in our ceremony. [01:13:30] So, actually, you know, when you go through the list, I think that through your community networks, you will know of the people, uh, that are that are the most appropriate for you. Um, but you're right. Um um there will be, uh, some people who don't and they will have to ring. And I guess it will be through a process of elimination. Uh, but I think that, um, yeah, there will be a sub list if that makes sense. Louisa, I agree with you that, um the evidence [01:14:00] is mounting that heterosexual people are bringing the institution of marriage into disrepute, um, in divorce and so on. So I wonder if you might consider drafting a new bill in the spirit of New Zealand leading the rest of the world. And that marriage should be for people of the same gender and that heterosexuals need to have a civil union. Well, the interesting Well, [01:14:30] the interesting discussion, um, in New Zealand was in 2004. I mean, civil unions were created to specifically address the issue of, um, same sex couples being able to marry. But we didn't limit it just to non heterosexual New Zealanders. And the reason we couldn't is we have a Bill of Rights Act, and our legislation can't discriminate. So, in fact, we open that institution to all New Zealanders. And I think that's the difference in New Zealand to other places [01:15:00] that create civil unions to specifically address the issue about non heterosexual couples being able to have a, uh, have a civil partnership. And I think is that that that was different for you, Boris. Is civil unions open to everybody in the Netherlands. And so I think, for the same reason, I mean, why would we create a specific institution for a specific group in the population when we believe in equality and non-discrimination It just [01:15:30] I know. But I took it seriously. OK? Yeah. You do pay me. Hi, Louisa. Um, on behalf of myself and, um, my gay and lesbian friends, um, I'd like to thank you for submitting the bill. You're absolute rock star in everybody's eyes. In that respect, um, I have the pleasure of listening to a lot of, um, late night talkback radio. As you can imagine, uh, things can get, especially [01:16:00] when the topic of gay marriage and things like that come up, Um, things get quite heated. Um, one reoccurring, um, sort of thing that that tends to come up is the effect that this will have on Children. I just want to know what your sort of position is. Um, like, what? What? What do you think about the detractors who the argument against gay marriage is that it's going to affect adversely affect Children or Children, and the partner is gonna It has [01:16:30] more to do with the adoption. But it's, um, like, Oh, no, that's a good point because, um, because the simplicity of the bill actually means that once you, um, become married, you will have the privilege of being able to to jointly adopt, um, and the most recent, um, evidence from, uh A, which is the assisted reproductive technologies. Um, group is that, um, and people like Jan Pryor who was the previous families commissioner? Um, the the international evidence [01:17:00] is actually really clear that Children who grow up in same sex families aren't adversely affected because the most important factor in family fun is about family functioning, not family form. And so people who argue from that position do so without the evidence to support them. And it's very much based on, um, it's it's discrimination and all those other things. I don't want to go into them, but But basically, the evidence [01:17:30] is becoming more and more clear. And certainly the New Zealand evidence is really clear. But is that Children need people who love support care and have good attachments to them. So having a mother and a father actually isn't the most important thing for Children to grow and develop. And so, um, I just say, Look at the evidence. I mean around all of this, it's about the evidence. So it's the science around it. Yeah, to [01:18:00] to both of you. Um, I don't really have a question, but I do have something I want to say to each of you. Um, first of all, I'd just like to observe that I was actually quite pleased to hear about you being stuck in the traffic. Um, not just because it gave you a chance to see this beautiful place where we live. But I just had the thought that if both of you went by some act of serendipity, it would just put back the [01:18:30] cause of human rights. Two centuries in one go. Um, like I'm sitting here tonight and in geographical terms, I'm not very far from the small town in the Coromandel where I spent my childhood and teenage years. Um, but sitting here hearing this, sitting here in the presence of you too, it's just an extraordinary distance from where I was five decades ago. [01:19:00] Um, I was heavily involved in the homosexual law reform in the late seventies and through into the eighties. And the vitriol, the hostility, the hatred that was just up there in the lights at that time was just terrible. And it's been one of the things that struck me about this campaign, that it's not there to the same extent in the public [01:19:30] arena. Now I don't for a moment pretend that each of you are not experiencing that you you will have had it obviously in in the Netherlands and Lewis or I'm sure you're getting it as well because you're the figureheads for these things. So essentially, why I've got the microphone is just to acknowledge each of you and what what you personally are doing, um, your humanity um, and Lesa, I'm aware of just the grace [01:20:00] that you have been, um, managing this campaign. It's just it's wonderful to be part of. And it's just wonderful to think that this is happening in our land at this time. Right? Well, we've, uh, surpass the time that we designated, um, But I suppose if they were one last burning question for either Boris or Luis, they [01:20:30] would entertain it. See? None. I would like you to thank Boris and Louisa for coming here and during the traffic and, uh, informing us brilliantly. Thank you. I believe if you'd like a cup of the light in the kitchen just went on. So, uh, head [01:21:00] over that direction. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it.
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