The group created to lobby for marriage and adoption equality, Legalise Love, has made its submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Read it here: LegaliseLove Aotearoa, consisting of its subsidiary groups LegaliseLove Wellington, LegaliseLove Auckland, and LegaliseLove Waikato, submit to the Government Administration Committee (‘the Committee’) that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill (‘the Bill’) up for consideration be favourably reported back to the House of Representatives, and that two amendments be added to the Bill. LegaliseLove Aotearoa LegaliseLove Aotearoa is a campaign for marriage and adoption equality currently based in the cities of Wellington, Auckland, and Hamilton. We are an alliance of youth and adults, LGBTIQ/queer people and straight people, from a variety of religious backgrounds and political persuasions. LegaliseLove was formed in August 2011 by students of Victoria University of Wellington in an attempt to place issues of equality back on the legislative agenda. Grounds of support for the Bill LegaliseLove supports the Bill on the following grounds; 1. Inconsistent law is unhealthy for a democracy. Unless there is a good reason for not doing so, a law should apply to all citizens equally. A law which creates arbitrary distinctions between groups of people undermines national unity and citizenship by alienating a significant proportion of the population. New Zealand is a nation that prides itself on equality and fairness, being the first nation in the world to extend voting rights to female citizens, and a law barring LGBTQI/queer citizens from any right extended to the rest of the population is in conflict with New Zealand values. 2. Marriage is a fundamental right of citizenship. The ability to refer to one’s partner using the words ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ is incredibly important, and recognition of these words extends across the globe. In contrast, the term ‘civil union partner’ very commonly requires explanation. Although a civil union is in no way inferior to a marriage, and indeed many opposite-sex couples have opted for a civil union over a marriage, the choice between the two institutions must be made freely, based on which best reflects a couple’s preferences and values. If this is not the case, and instead marriage, which is to many New Zealanders the very bedrock of the family structure, is forbidden on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, this relegates the individuals prohibited to marry to second-class citizenship. 3. The definition of marriage is constantly evolving. For many religious New Zealanders, the spiritual aspect of the institution of marriage is of critical importance. For others, it is a secular institution that serves as a societal recognition of the bond between loving and consenting adults. Deciding what it means to be ‘married’ is something that every married couple will decide for themselves, and the number of answers to this question will likely be as vast as the number of married couples itself. The role that the state has adopted regarding the institution of marriage in New Zealand is to recognise the legal status of a couple, and legislate based on the economic implications of this. It is not bound by a particular social or religious concept of marriage, and does not discriminate between a religious or atheist couple when deciding what rate of income tax should be applied. The ability of a couple to define marriage for themselves is part of the human experience, and the extension of the ability to obtain a marriage licence to LGBTQI/queer citizens does not impact upon the ability of any New Zealander to do so. 4. Equal rights would reduce homophobic attitudes. Excluding LGBTQI/queer citizens from the institution of marriage sends a message to New Zealanders that all love is not equal. It reinforces the message that LGBTQI/queer people are in some way different from straight people, and this message is incredibly harmful and in stark contrast with New Zealand values. A major problem that LGBTQI/queer youth face across the nation is relentless homophobic bullying from their peers in high schools. This is reflected in the appalling rate of suicide amongst high school-aged LGBTQI/queer people, five times higher than their straight counterparts according to the Youth ’07 report conducted by the University of Auckland. It is absolutely essential that when youth in this position look to their government, they see a state unequivocally united against homophobic bullying, a state that looks them square in the eye and says, ‘who you are is okay.’ New Zealand is not a homophobic nation, and nor is it a nation that tolerates laws that reinforce and justify homophobic attitudes. New Zealand is a nation that stands alongside its youth, who are just coming to terms with their sexual orientation and gender identity, and promises that no matter what they may discover about themselves in this search for identity, the homophobia they experience in high school will one day stop, and when they reach adulthood they will be granted full rights of citizenship. Proposed amendments LegaliseLove Aotearoa recommends that the text of the Bill be amended to accommodate the following; 1. A clarification pertaining to the Adoption Act 1955, s 3. The current law on adoption limits the adoption of children to individuals or ‘spouses’, which excludes couples in civil unions and therefore currently couples in same-sex relationships. In the Parliamentary debate surrounding the First Reading of the Bill on 29 August, Louisa Wall clarified that if the Bill was to become law, ‘same-sex marital partners as spouses would be able to make a joint application to adopt’. However, there is a significant amount of public confusion surrounding this issue, and many fear that following the Bill’s passage into law there would be a period of costly litigation in order to clarify the common law position on the interpretation of the Adoption Act 1955 in light of this Bill, particularly in respect of the word ‘spouses’. To avoid such an unnecessary legal dispute, LegaliseLove recommends that a clarification within the text of the Bill itself exist to resolve legal issues before they have an opportunity to arise. 2. A clarification pertaining to the Marriage Act 1955, s 29. In the course of campaigning for marriage equality, LegaliseLove Aotearoa has encountered a large body of people who are concerned that, if this Bill were to become law, individual churches would be obliged to hold marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, which may go against their doctrine of the church. Many of the people we have encountered with this concern are, save for this one fear, completely supportive of marriage equality. Under s 29 of the Marriage Act 1955, celebrants have discretion over whether to solemnise a marriage once a marriage licence is obtained, effectively allowing churches and ministers to refuse to marry any couple they choose to. In the Parliamentary debate surrounding the First Reading of the Bill, Louisa Wall assured the House of Representatives that this would not change. The Human Rights Commission has also issued a statement to this effect. Nevertheless, despite such assurances, the issue of religious freedom continues to be a major issue in the minds of many of those who would otherwise support this Bill. On the grounds that compelling religious groups to marry same-sex couples is not an intended purpose of this Bill, and that therefore leaving this issue in doubt serves only to alienate many New Zealanders to no apparent benefit, LegaliseLove Aotearoa recommends that a clarification be written into the text of the Bill itself reinforcing the supremacy of s 29 of the Marriage Act 1955. Regardless of the Committee’s decision to adopt (or not adopt) these proposed amendments, LegaliseLove Aotearoa unconditionally supports the favourable reporting of the Bill to the House of Representatives. Legalise Love - 29th November 2012