On 29 August 2012 Aotearoa, New Zealand began its journey to realize marriage equality in the first reading of my Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It was a simple amendment - defining marriage as between two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Bill focused on the rights of consenting adults, underpinned by principles of love, fairness, and equality of outcome for all New Zealand citizens, to be able to apply for, and receive from the State, a license to marry. For the state to deny people this right was unlawful discrimination in a socially progressive modern democracy and it was time to be clear that we, in practice and theory, have clear separation of Church and State. All citizens are equal before the law.

There was much passion and a mixture of reactions throughout our various communities about my Marriage Equality Bill resulting in over 21,000 submissions to the Select Committee.  The passionate reactions reflected the diversity of opinions across our society. The ability to engage, to make a statement and to have a say about marriage in a modern democratic society was fundamental. It is a vital aspect of a functioning, participatory, open, and transparent democracy. 

The human rights origins of this legal reform is reflected in New Zealand’s role on the international stage. In 1944, when the founding document of the United Nations, the United Nations Charter, was being developed, New Zealand pushed for a stronger focus on human rights, and in 1948 New Zealand again played an important and effective role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We saw the need for such a declaration and participated in its instigation and development. This is not surprising, given that we led the world in enabling women to be permitted to vote. And, in fact, indigenous women were also at the forefront of this debate with Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia requesting that the Maori parliament should not only allow women the right to vote but that women should be accepted as candidates that could be voted in as members of parliament.

Women fought for the rights and were granted the vote in 1893, and it took the United States another 27 years to reach that same point. The fact that sexual orientation is a ground of unlawful discrimination in New Zealand also played a part in our deliberations. In 1993 as a country we amended the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 to outlaw discrimination on a wider variety of grounds, including sexual orientation. The basis of the law reform for marriage equality was that LGBTIQ people were equal citizens of New Zealand and therefore, as equal citizens, the law and the State should not and could not discriminate by allowing only heterosexual  couples to obtain a marriage license from the State.

What my Bill did not do was to require any person on behalf of a Church to carry out a marriage if it did not fit with the beliefs of the Church celebrant or the religious teachings of the Church. For Churches and religious institutions, such discrimination would be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, based on the right to freedom of religion—specifically, the manifestation of religion and belief—under section 15 of that Act.

It is the State’s role to uphold our laws and our international obligations and to ensure that everyone is equal under the law. The Church may discriminate, but the State should not and cannot. We, as Members of Parliament, belong to the only institution in New Zealand—our Parliament—that makes our laws and upholds not only these laws but our international obligations as well. It is not the State’s role to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality or other expressions of sexual orientation based on gender identities. We recognized that as a country in 1986, when we decriminalized homosexual acts. Nor is it the State’s role to judge the marriages of its citizens. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with the marriage laws of the State.

Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilizations and cultures and has, over that time, changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor, Nero. The Catholic Church initially saw the institution of marriage as tainted and undesirable, and advocated chastity and celibacy. Once the Church adopted and adapted marriage, it was for life. It could not be dissolved. A married woman assumed the identity of her husband and he received all her property. By marriage, the legal doctrine of coverture meant a woman had no legal status. She could not own property, enter into contracts, earn money, or obtain an education without her husband’s consent.

The Church and State have, at different times, refused to marry people who have been divorced, refused to marry people of different faiths, and refused to marry people of different races. Those restrictions have changed, because they were not fair or just or reflective of how the people of those democracies were living their lives.  Modern citizenship requires all democratically elected governments to treat their citizens equally.

It is shocking today to think that women were not able to be guardians of their children upon a divorce or separation. A law was needed to change that. For women to own property required law changes as recently as 1884. A woman was able to obtain a divorce from her husband only if there was another reason alongside adultery, such as extreme cruelty, desertion, or incest. A man, however, could obtain a divorce immediately on the basis of his wife’s adultery.

These are all part of the historical matrix that is marriage. Thankfully, the need to change some of the laws has been recognised and implemented. With women obtaining the right to vote and finally having legal status, the greatest transformation of marriage began. There are a number of shocking historical facts that surround this subject, and we baulk at how, in a modern democratically elected and civilized society, they could happen.

In 2012 it was time in New Zealand, and in many other countries, to begin the public discussion about opening the institution of marriage to all people who were not restricted by consanguinity or affinity relationships. There was no reasonable ground on which the State should deny any citizen the right to enter the institution of marriage if he, she or they chose.  Such a denial is not inclusive and meant the State itself discriminated on the basis of historical, moral and colonial attitudes. 

The fundamental issue about my Marriage Equality Bill was that it merely allowed a couple to obtain a marriage license from the State.  It did not interfere with a person's own beliefs or how they wished to celebrate marriage. It did not mean that a minister or organizational celebrant must marry a couple.

There were two specific consequences to achieving marriage equality in New Zealand. Under section 3 of our current Adoption Act a joint application to adopt can only be made by spouses or the birth parent and his or her spouse. A spouse is a marital partner, so if you are married, you are spouses. Therefore, under the current wording of the Adoption Act, same-sex or non-heterosexual marital partners as spouses are now able to make a joint application to adopt a child. 

The Bill also required a consequential amendment to section 30(2) of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995. This provision limited a trans person who is married and who gets a Family Court declaration under section 28 of the Act to change their sex details on a birth certificate from remaining in their marriage. This section was deleted. Therefore a marriage could remain strong through the significant change of one partner transitioning from one sex to another and was able to continue to be recognised under New Zealand law.

How any person’s marriage is performed has never been the State’s business. Whether it be cultural, religious, or civil, it is a decision for the couple and their family or whānau. What the Bill did was enable that decision to be made and for all couples to have the same choices about how they make a commitment to one another. Marriage, as an institution, requires a licence from the State who should not exclude any eligible citizen from applying for and receiving that license.  To exclude two people from obtaining a marriage licence based on their sexual orientation or gender identity was not tolerable. We had an opportunity as a Parliament to rectify that discriminatory, unequal, and unfair application of marriage law in NewZealand and thankfully on 17 April 2013, by 77 votes to 44, we did just that.