Submission to the Government Administration Committee Marriage (Denition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 26 October 2012

1.! Introduction

This submission is made by Jessica Desmond and Keri Henare. We are a heterosexual couple, in our mid twenties. While currently focused on developing our careers we are not yet looking to marry, but when we decide to there will be no legal impediment, no one will prevent us from doing so. It may seem like we have nothing to lose or gain from Louisa Wall's Marriage Amendment Bill. However, we passionately and genuinely do believe that this bill is to the benet of all New Zealanders. Therefore, we are making this submission to urge the select committee to support the bill. 2.! The right to equality

It is a fundamental human right of all people not to be discriminated against by the law. This is a cornerstone of modern democracy, and a right of all New Zealander's under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the NZ Bill of Rights, and the Human Rights Act. By prohibiting citizens from having a state issued license because of their gender/sexual orientation, our current legislation is prejudice and discriminatory. It segregates one group of New Zealanders from another. This bill would end that discrimination without negatively impacting the rights of others. The right of same-sex couples to marry does no harm. The personal, spiritual and traditional value of other people's marriages is theirs to hold as they wish. This bill will not take that from them, it will only allow for many more committed, loving couples to experience it. 3.! Reecting society

The Marriage Amendment Bill emphasises that marriage is about commitment and the legal recognition of a family unit. New Zealand families come in all shapes and sizes. Many contain same-sex couples, who's love and commitment are recognised by their friends, family and community, but not fully by the government. Many of our loved ones are in committed relationships, some of them are straight and others are gay. Like many New Zealanders, we do not distinguish between who are gay and who are straight. We recognise and celebrate their relationships equally. Current legislation is lagging behind a tolerant and accepting public.

4. !

The journey so far

As a people, we now stand at a point where equality is so close. The Civil Union bill did much to protect the rights of same-sex couples but a boundary still exists. In many ways this difference echoes the days of segregation in the United States of America. Everyone was entitled to use bathrooms, restaurants and public transport. Whites could go where they liked and sat where they liked. However, if you weren't white then you could only use a separate bathroom or restaurant, and you could only sit at the back of the bus. Similarly, any couple in New Zealand can have their union recognised by the state, but only heterosexual couples can chose to be married. No matter how close the options are to equal, by limiting the choices of one group based on sexual orientation, we are discriminating. The difference between a Civil Union and Marriage in the current legal sense is that for Marriage, the two parties must have been born of separate genders. This distils the meaning of Marriage down to be nothing more than one penis and one vagina, and strips away the importance and value of Marriage. 5.! Addressing opposition

Some highly vocal critics of marriage equality also fought against civil unions and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. They foretold of a future of moral decay, instead we have seen more tolerance and acceptance. History has shown us that every time we choose to treat others the way that we wish to be treated, we strengthen the moral spirit of New Zealand. Acceptance of others will bring no harm and can only make for a better nation. Opponents of this bill argue that procreation is the very purpose of Marriage and yet procreation is not a requirement of Marriage. We do not stop infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, nor do we stop couples who choose not to have children. Likewise, Marriage is not required for procreation as a large portion of our population chooses to have children without being married. We do not deny heterosexual couples the right to marry based on fertility and we should not deny same-sex couples on the same basis. Opponents fear that the only way a child can be raised successfully is with a mother and a father. This ignores the fact that even without marriage, same-sex families already exist. Furthermore it insults the successes of solo-parents throughout the country. And nally there is much evidence to suggest otherwise. Of the 23 empirical, peer reviewed studies into the effects of gay parents on children they have raised across 7 outcomes, including; emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behaviour, behavioural adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning, not one study found any signicant difference for any outcome between these children and children raised by heterosexual couples. These studies encompass more than 1000 children of all ages, across Europe and the United States, and span more than 20 years of research[1]. This fear comes therefore not from reason, but from personal prejudice, which has no place in our laws.

6. !

Marriage & Religion

Marriage has a long history, across many cultures, stretching back to early human civilisation. Many ancient civilisations including the Romans, Greek, Chinese and Native Americans have at times both allowed and celebrated same-sex unions at a state level. The denition of marriage has changed as society has changed. We cannot allow historical practices to dene our future. Once it was illegal for couples of different races to marry and it was illegal for a marriage to end without death, but our society has evolved beyond such rules. Some religious groups claim a right to dene Marriage and yet religion is not a requirement for Marriage. Every day, New Zealand couples marry without religious involvement. They make a commitment to each other in the eyes of the law and do so without abiding by any religious restrictions. Again, we do not deny heterosexual couples the right to marry based on religious belief or lack thereof and we should not deny same-sex couples on that basis either. Some that oppose this bill do so for fear it shall mean the beliefs of others will be forced upon them. Existing laws already protect their beliefs, but this proves that they have the same fears as supporters of the bill. We are all concerned that our rights and beliefs be infringed upon by the beliefs of others.This bill will remedy and prevent this from happening. 7. ! Effects on young people

Current Marriage laws tell young, gay New Zealanders: You are less. You are not okay. You are not equal. Regardless of their qualities as a person, of their talents, of their compassion or their ambition they are told that they are less in the eyes of the law. That they should be denied opportunities because of who they were born. How does a young person ourish with that as a fundamental belief? How much more must you overcome to be proud of who you are, to be a well adjusted, productive member of a community, when at a state level you are discriminated against? And how does that lter down to the way other people treat and respond to you? How condent would you be of introducing your parents to the person you love, when you know that at a fundamental level of society your relationship and commitment is not seen as being as valid as a heterosexual one? The future generations of this country will be made up of a mix of cultures, faiths and sexual orientations. They will be strong for their diversity and for their tolerance. But only if we ght against instances of prejudice and discrimination left over from the past. 8. ! The way forward

New Zealanders have always been trail blazers. New Zealand was the rst country in the world to give women the vote. We recognised that thousands of years of cultural and religious belief could not stand in the way of equality. We pride ourselves on being innovative and not afraid to stand-up for what is right. If we do not take a stand for marriage equality now it would be laughable that we retain this reputation. We would rapidly fall further behind the eleven progressive nations who have already passed similar laws. We must show the world that New Zealand is a place of equality and a people of understanding and tolerance.

9. !

Conclusion

Heterosexual members of the Select Committee could not be prevented from committing themselves to their partners, with the binding license that is marriage, based on anyone else's beliefs or values. Please support the rights of all of our citizens to enjoy the same choice. Help to create a fair and tolerant New Zealand; which reects its people and does not discriminate against them. We must treat others the way that we want them to treat us. We are making this submission to urge the select committee to support this bill. We would like to appear before the Committee to speak to our submission. --1! ! Andersseen, Amlie & Yttery, 2002 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract