OK, I was wrong. Chris Auchinvole's speech may have been the most important in this debate - it came midway in the process, at the second reading, and probably helped persuade others in his centre-right National Party to support same sex marriage.
But hands down the most memorable was this speech yesterday, also by centre right National Party MP Maurice Williamson which is hilarious. He uses humour to devastate opponents of same sex marriage, assures everyone of the most important thing, that nothing in the world will change will the passage of the bill, other than making it a bit more equal for lgbt people. And he even ends with a real gay rainbow! http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/mwilliamson.html --- In gay_bombay@yahoogroups.com, Vikram D <vgd67@...> wrote: > > The Parliament of New Zealand has just passed the same sex marriage bill - > and not just passed it, but passed it by a huge margin of 77 to 44. It now > just needs to formality of Royal Assent to become law and for marriages to > start. So for all the guys here who have looked at those sexy NZ cricketers > in their black kits or the supersexy NZ rugby players in their even more > revealing black kits and dreamed of marriage, it now might be possible. > > > The usual religious pressures were brought against it including, sadly, from > the one Sikh NZ MP, Kanwal Bakshi, born in Delhi, but became a MP in NZ but > it doesn't seem to have taught him much tolerance. He had no problems > attending a public meeting where really vile things were said about queer > people and where he lied and tried to turn what had been an open, > non-partisan debate into a political one by saying that most of his > centre-right National Party MPs had voted against the bill, but most Labour > MPs had voted for it. > > > In fact, most National Party MPs voted for the bill (which was always on > ''conscience" and not party lines), and the most memorable speech came from > one of Mr.Bakshi's party colleagues Chris Auchinvole. He gave a really > excellent speech (and others after) in which he made it clear that he came > from a conservative, religious background and hadn't grown up sympathetic to > homosexuals, but he had changed his mind over the years and had come to the > debate with an open mind and listened carefully to the arguments against it, > but had come to the conclusion that they had no rational basis. He also later > said that in his school there had been boys who committed suicide, possibly > because they were gay, and it was thinking of that loss that made his change > his mind. > > > Here's a link to his speech which is really worth reading and listening to in > full, and also a few key extracts: > > http://yournz.org/2013/03/15/chris-auchinvoles-marriage-equality-bill-speech/ > > "Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly > large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to > engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number > would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my > wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody elseâs heterosexual marriage. > I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe > that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse > of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of > those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in > coming to a defined position on this bill." > > "I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I > married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever > after. But the question that exercised the upper echelons of > ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should > take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West > Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope! > During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a > hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or, indeed, wanting to > marry someone of a different religion. Bans of marriage were called from > pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were > invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to > forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and > although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, > they have often been less than favourable for women." > > "The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matters of conscience and > the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given > much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a > Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked > hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement > that lifeâs opportunities offer, and you will always get other members > who will tell you that, as one did this evening. > To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to > the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion > tell me the Jesuits determine is at 7 years old, when I was a boy. > I looked at catechismic values when learning the catechism by rote in > Glasgow: âWho made you?â âGod made me.â âWhy did God make you?â > âGod > made me to know him and love him.â The third question: âWhat image did > God make you in?â > The answer: âGod made me in his own image.â Every 7-year-old boy and > girl said the same and believed it was true. They did not have to add: > â⦠as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone > of the same gender as myself.â My conscience is very clear on this > issue. > Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another to being > made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to > deny that. I have addressed the question of eschatology in my mind, the > question of ensuring religious freedom, and the assumption of benign > institutionalisation. My conscience is not clouded or indeed involved in this > issue." > > "What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in > fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person > appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be > identified just by gender preference, but in fact to be seen as a > motherâs son or a daughter, and a fatherâs daughter or son, as siblings > to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, > nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to > their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins. > They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and > relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and > all are partâ"in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscienceâ"of Godâs > family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that > critics have accused it of undermining, and that is the family. > We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of > the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their > interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass > this bill." >
