Duelling avatars.

Monday April 15, 2pm:With the third reading just two days away, a quick roundup from the last week or so:

Tuesday April 2, 2pm: With the US Supreme Court in deliberation over important marriage equality decisions, supporters of change have been adopting equal-sign avatars in their hundreds of thousands. In what can only be described as a counterviral, the NZ Protect Marriage group have struck back with their own avatar. More here.

Here are the latest covers of the US edition of Time:

Nothing on that Suede album cover art from way back, if you ask me.

Family First has urged fellow opponents of the legislation to print and distribute an updated version of its flyer (PDF) targetting MPs considered swayable.

Monday April 1, 4pm: In the Waikato Times, Josh Drummond urges opponents of the legislation to “Be honest about” their reasons.

Blogger Cactus Kate is groaning at Jacinda Ardern’s used-to-be-a-Mormon “faux sob story”.

And here’s a splendid post from Moata Tamaira: Six things The Princess Bride can teach us about marriage equality.

The third reading of the bill is scheduled for Wednesday April 17. Assuming it passes and gains royal assent, it will take force four months later, following an amendment introduced following the select committee hearings.

Wednesday March 27, 11.00pm: Committee stage

The bill has this evening progressed from the committee stage, with a vote of 77 in favour and 43 against.

The missing 121st vote is Gerry Brownlee’s, for whom no proxy was recorded. Otherwise it was a repeat of the vote at the second reading.

The Parliament Today summary is here.

According to Stuff, rival protests involving about 800 people were staged outside parliament.

The debate as it unfolded is below, in summary and video – the latter part is video-only, more text to follow.

 5.40pm: Kevin Hague (Greens, list) takes the first call in the committee stage debate.

The arguments against the bill, he says, expressed in select committee submissions and in house debate, “have largely been motivated by fear – by fear of concerns that are largely imaginary”.

The amendments proposed, says Hague, are superfluous; some are dealt with in the bill, others are based on “false concerns”.

5.45pm: Ruth Dyson (Labour, Port Hills), chair of the Government Administration Committee at which the bill was considered, reiterates that the legislation’s purpose is to ensure gay people “never feel second rate, never feel less worthy than everyone else.”

Dyson expresses her opposition to the supplementary order papers (SOPs – there are four, see below at 5pm) such as that from Tim Macindoe which would extend the discrimination provision in the bill to all celebrants, rather than just those attached to churches.

5.55pm: Next is Su’a William Sio (Labour, Mangere). He voted against the bill, but, acknowledging it is likely to progress, he has advanced an SOP (see below) that would ensure the right “balance between religious freedoms and the new same-sex marriage freedoms provided by this bill”.

6pm: Then Winston Peters (NZ First, list) stands to argue that the legislation is indefensible in the absence of a referendum.

Almost immediately he is invoking Abraham Lincoln, what would he have thought of such a thing, says Peters. “We can trust the people on Mighty River power but we can’t ask them on moral issues?” The process under way was a despicable expression of “moral superiority” by parliamentarians, he says.

The house has now emptied for dinner, with debate to resume at 7.30pm.

7.35pm: Jacinda Ardern (Labour list) is the first to speak after the break.

Ardern reminds the house that she was once a member of the Mormon church – the values of which she increasingly found to clash with her social values. She knows what “cognitive dissonance” means, she says, explaining that she chose to leave the church. “I respect their right to choose how marriage is expressed … I would not support any part of a bill that removed that freedom.”

She goes on to talk about her great uncle, imprisoned in 1948 for his sexuality. “I don’t believe we will have a truly inclusive society until we remove all forms of discrimination be they physical bars or the stigma imposed by legal differentiation. That’s why today, Mr Chair, I cast my vote on behalf of queer and questioning youth, on behalf of my friends, and I cast it on behalf of my uncle.”

It’s quite a speech.

7.40pm: Brendan Horan (independent, list) is next to contribute. He wants a referendum on such a “dramatic social change”, and has knocked out an SOP to prove it.

7.55pm: Moana Mackey (Labour, list) is speaking in the place of Louisa Wall, who is absent.

Mackey seeks to assure the house that the provisions of the existing bill and the existing Marriage Act are sufficient to ensure the retention of religious freedoms for church affiliated celebrants who don’t wish to solemnise marriages they don’t approve of on the basis of sexual orientation. The amendments sought there are unnecessary, she argues, and would only “muddy” the situation.

She goes on to argue that the issue is one of human rights, and therefore not appropriate for a referendum.

8.00pm: Rajan Prasad (Labour, list) says that those he consulted who opposed the bill tended also to oppose homosexuality in principle, and that issue was closed. this bill takes nothing away from anybody. There is no merit, he says, in the argument that the changes laid out in the bill might “somehow reduce us a society”.

He objects to the Macindoe amendment, which would “inadvertently legitimise discrimination itself”.

8.10pm: Look, hipsters, here’s Paul Goldsmith (National, list). He kicks off by quoting Tony Blair. “When you decide, you divide.” He’s torn between his conservative, traditionalist instincts and his commitment to freedom. He’s thought about it, and freedom won.

After a detour on to welfare policy, he intimates that he will support all the SOPs.

8.15pm: David Bennett (Hamilton East), who voted against the bill on the first two readings, is next.

“I don’t know if we are elected to make this decision here today … I believe it’s up the public to make that decision … I think it is being brave to accept that we don’t know everything in this house.”

8.20pm: Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori party, Waiariki) speaks – in Te Reo – in support of the bill and those who have brought it to the house. I’d welcome a summary from a Te Reo speaker if there’s anyone willing.

8.25pm: Ian McKelvie (National, Rangitikei) speaks against the bill, and says he will back the NZ First leader’s amendment requiring a referendum.

He says that while we should respect difference, it is not for MPs to “overturn the sanctity of marriage … as between one man and one woman”.

And this: “This parliament will not be able to turn a sheep into a goat no matter how hard it tries.”

8.30pm: Tim Macindoe (National, Hamilton West) makes the case for his SOP (see below). He adds that he’ll be supporting Peters’s contribution on a referendum.

Macindoe insists that he is not homophobic, and has been unreasonably slurred. He has plenty of gay friends and they congratulate him for his contribution, even if they don’t agree with him.

8.35pm: Jo Goodhew (National, Rangitata) says her support for the bill is based on “severalfold” arguments. “I don’t subscribe to the stories of decline that it’s said will follow this bill.”

Chris Auchinvole (National, West Coast Tasman) gained a moment of celebrity in his second reading speech. Can he do it again?

Su’a William Sio again.

Paul Hutchison (National, Hunua) stand to express his “continued support”. He’s tabled a wee amendment, too, which as far as I can tell (I haven’t seen the wording) would, like Macindoe’s, extend the freedom to refuse solemnisation to all celebrants.

Chester Borrows (National, Whanganui)

Colin King (National, Kaikoura) just wants to “grab the opportunity to support those people who have put forward SOPs”. The bill “doesn’t sit comfortably” with him.

More from Tim Macindoe.

Eric Roy, acting as chairperson in the committee stage, says it’s time for a vote.

He rules that under standing order 2981 the supplementary order papers from Horan and Peters seeking a referendum are out of order, because the house has “already declared its intent” by voting down Peters’ amendment in the second reading that sought a referendum. Horan objects; Roy says it’s all about the “guiding principle”.

David Bennett raises a point of order seeking leave for “the house to grant the option of having the referendum one”. Members oppose and so we go to Su’a William Sio‘s amendment. A personal vote.

Ayes are 22, Noes 87 (Subsequently updated to 22-88). Next to Tim Macindoe‘s amendment-to-the-amendment, as proposed by Rodney MP Mark Mitchell, which according to Macindoe earlier, “clarifies” his SOP.

Personal vote.

No amending the amendment. Rejected by 80 to 35. And to the amendment itself…

Ayes are 36, noes 80 (later corrected to 36-79). Now to Paul Hutchison’s typescript amendment to clause 5A.

No dice. Loses 18-85 (later corrected to 18-84). Now to the substantive vote …

And the bill advances through its committee stage, with a vote of 77 in favour and 43 against.

Wednesday March 27, 5pm:  The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill enters its committee stage this evening, with debate excpected to commence in the house at 5.30pm. The dinner break is at 6pm, and members regather at 7.30pm. As usual it will be on Parliament TV, and streamed online here.

Four supplementary order papers have been lodged proposing amendments to the bill, from (links are to PDFs) Su’a William Sio, Tim Macindoe, Winston Peters and Brendan Horan.

The explanatory note accompanying William Sio’s amendments is a bit of a mouthful:

The first purpose of the amendments is to ensure full protection for celebrants from religious bodies and approved organisations to refuse to perform same-sex marriages if to do so would be against the beliefs or convictions of the celebrant or of the religious body or approved organisation. Civil celebrants and Registrars should not have this protection because they are performing a paid public service, so their personal views on marriage are not relevant. This is consistent with the approach taken in the UK and Canada.

The amendment also confirms the right to freedom of expression by protecting persons and organisations from challenges to the lawfulness of their conduct in expressing views, or providing or refusing to provide guidance or counselling, but only if that conduct is based on the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Finally, the amendments protect religious bodies and approved organisations from challenges to the lawfulness of refusing to allow their premises to be used in connection with a same-sex marriage. This applies only to premises used for religious purposes, and not to commercial or investment property.

Macindoe’s amendment would extend the protection of the bill with regard to celebrants choosing not to marry same-sex couples to all, not just those attached to religious institutions. It would “ensure that a person will be able to refuse to supply facilities or services (including solemnizing a marriage) if the marriage is one that is contrary to their beliefs about marriage, despite section 44(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993 (which makes it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of goods, facilities, or services)”.

Peters’ would “would require a referendum to be held concurrently with the next election before this Bill could come into force”.

Similar stuff from Peters’ former underling and now independent MP, Brendan Horan. His amendement “would provide for a referendum to be held before the Bill comes into force”.

In the meantime, here’s a man on Twitter, who is obviously thinking of New Zealand with this message.

Tuesday March 26, 9.30am: A NZ Herald poll, published on the front page of this morning’s paper, suggests that support for Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill is slipping.

From the Herald:

 Asked what best fitted their view on marriage law, 48 per cent of those polled said marriage should remain between a man and a woman – an increase of 7.5 percentage points from a poll last June.

A Family First press release says the poll “proves that 70-80 politicians have no mandate to change the longstanding definition of marriage”.

Monday March 25, noon: In the face of a range of claims and criticisms from opponents, Louisa Wall has written an opinion piece for the NZ Herald explaining what her bill means for adoption.

“The only change that will occur if my bill passes is that if a couple marry, they will be deemed ‘spouses’ and they qualify as joint applicants for an adoption order,” she writes. “That means both parents will have the same status under the law and both names will be on the child’s birth certificate.”

A remarkable letter to the Waikato Times is noted by Stephen Stratford at his Quote Unquote blog. It begins:

I have a thought about the drought in this country, which affects our country at its grass roots.

Perhaps a contributing factor is the new marriage law proposed in Parliament.

Philip Walter has written an open letter to Murray McCully, his MP in the East Coast Bays electorate. In the past he’s voted for McCully, but the National MP’s reversal of support for the marriage equality bill means he won’t have it next time, writes Walter in an interesting post.

Around the world, two important decisions on gay marriage are expected this week from the US Supreme Court, while opponents of legislation to allow same-sex marriage in France protested in Paris on Sunday.

Tuesday March 19, noon: A catch-up with some of the news and commentary from the last few days:

 In the Sunday Star Times Michael Laws says that by refusing the “Catholic-Presbyterian-Pentecostal plea that conscientious objection to the new standard be allowed” parliamentarians have “imposed a new orthodoxy upon us all, irrespective of religious, cultural or moral conscience”. He omits to mention the amendments that makes clear there is no obligation on religious celebrants.

The SST also has a column from Simon Cunliffe which combines the new Pope, Solid Energy and the marriage equality bill. Can’t find it online, but.

Coley Tangerina writes at The Daily Blog on New Zealand First trying to have it both ways: “NZ First is somehow attempting to be friends to the queers while playing Switzerland to the bigots.”

Chris Auchinvole responds to his new celebrity status in this Herald report.

Here’s an argument for taking the state out of marriage completely.

The shift in views in the US on gay marriage have changed reasonably dramatically over the last 10 years. Via the Daily Beast:

And David Farrar at Kiwiblog wonders whether Family First is wise to say that polygamy is more justified than gay marriage.

Thursday March 14, 2pm: David Farrar of Kiwiblog, a supporter of the bill, was in the gallery for the debate, and gives an extended review of the debate, which begins: “The gallery was packed. And I mean packed – there was a queue to get in forming around 7 pm, and they ran out of seats so allowed many to just stand at the back of the public galleries. I wasn’t sure how many were supporters and how many were opponents, but noticed that the vast majority were young Kiwis. This is very rare in the gallery, and great to see.”

Farrar was so enthused by it all that he didn’t get to bed until 2.30am.

Family First is not rolling over. The debate last night failed to address the most important issues around the legislation, claims Bob McCroskie in a press release. “There was virtually no discussion in the 2nd Reading about the major impact on adoption laws that this bill will have,” he says. “The politicians are also failing to comprehend that the bill as proposed will coerce those with a conscientious objection to same-sex ‘marriage’ to solemnise them against their conscience.”

The Campaign for Marriage Equality, by contrast, has professed itself “ecstatic” with last night’s result.

At Pundit, Rex Ahdar looks at the conscience amendment that has been added to protect religious liberty for church celebrants. They’ve got it wrong, he says.

The new pope is no fan of gay marriage. When marriage equality legislation was mooted in his native Argentina, the man now known as Francis I called it a “move of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God”.

Thursday March 14, 12.25pm: I’ll add videos of the debate when they surface. In the meantime you can read the draft transcript of the debate here.

The second reading, Wednesday March 13

8.20pm: We’re under way. (The Mondayisation vote went through in favour by 61 to 60, by the way.)

Louisa Wall (Labour, Manurewa) kicks things off, and is more fluent than her slightly wooden effort in the first reading.

Wall, the bill’s sponsor, emphasises that it is fundamentally about equalilty. “It’s not about gay marriage, same-sex marriage or straight marriage, it’s about equality.” The bill is intended to scrub the discrimation from the statute – the importance of which is underlined by the “agony and hardship” of discrimation articulated during select committee hearings.

Wall says: “The agony and hardship that so many who bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable. But what’s totally unacceptable, is the state perpetuating that agony and hardship by not issuing marriage licences to loving, consenting and eligible non-heterosexual couples.”

She reiterates that she will “defend the rights of those in churches to practise their religion”, though she hopes that they will come to accept same-sex marriage “in their own time”.

Wall condemns the “totally misleading” suggestions by opponents of the bill in recent days that religious celebrants would be compelled to marry same-sex people. An amendment makes that even clearer, she says.

A couple of individuals are quoted by Wall. Desmond Tutu is one. More surprising is the US rapper Macklemore.

There is applause.

8.30pm: Tim Macindoe (National, Hamilton West) is next.

He acknowledges the numerous people who have lobbied him (apart from theose who were rude, and showed a much greter bigotry than anything they might accuse him of) and says he respects the range of views. But despite having considerable sympathy for the bill’s advocates, he finds “difficulty in believing that God wants this change to be made” and as a Christian he is obliged to “honour Him and his word”. Marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Says Macindoe: “New Zealand may indeed be a secular society but marriage has historically been a religious institution.”

The argument that it would have no impact on existing married couples is false, he says – Christians believe marriage to be an institution overseen by God, and that is affected by changing its essence. “It may be convenient for some to argue that the change of a definition has no great impact on others, but it ignores and offends tens of thousands of New Zealanders who think otherwise.”

It’s raucous in the public gallery. The Speaker, before Macindoe took to his feet, warned: “Can I just remind members in the gallery, you’re in parliament. There will be no comment at all.”

8.35pm: Ruth Dyson (Labour,  Port Hills) takes a shorter call, to accelerate the process so that a vote might be taken tonight.

Dyson, chair of the Government Administration Committee, which heard submissions on the bill, speaks of those who appeared to recount how they had been “bullied, isolated and rejected from their families, isolated from their communities”.

The bill provides people of all sexualities a “lawful recognition of the values of their loving relationship”, and repreents a “step forward in recognising the calue of love in our lives”.

She concludes by attacking the claims by bill opponents that the legislation would remove words such as husband and wife from the law.

8.45pm: Chris Auchinvole (National, West Coast Tasman) delivers a jolly speech, complete with jokes and Scottish accents, which put together just about brings the house down.

He even uses the word “eschatological” – to describe the arguments made by those who believe such a change would be “the beginning of the end of society as we know it”. That view was “based on fear and circular argument, he says, as he sets about systematically rebutting the main arguments against the bill.

He gives a shout-out to his redhead wife in the public gallery. It isn’t clear to me what that was all about.

The weight of submissions to the committee, he says, “shout out change that we cannot close our ears to”.

“As an older person we do have a baggage to carry of remembering when homosexuality was illegal, indeed it was criminal.”

“This bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining: the family.”

Applause.

It is now Eric Roy in the Speaker’s chair.

Look: a drinking game.

8.50pm: Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South) keeps it brief, too.

He recalls the 1987 homosexual law reform bill, and how “the winds of change have blown” since then. “They have moved us a very, very long way, and that is reflected not only in society’s attitude over the period of time, but in the attitude of members of parliament and the public as they have taken part in this debate.”

He suggests that a truly secular society may not be involved in marriage at all, but accepts that those winds, blowing though they are, haven’t yet blown that far.

9.00pm: Winston Peters (NZ First, list) moves an amendment for the bill’s effect to be contingent on a referendum to replace the vote on a second reading, and urging a referendum on the measures (see Graeme Edgeler’s Twitter timeline for a better explanation).

There is “no democratic mandate at all” for “one of the most polarising issues of our time”, he says.

He makes the same point repeatedly, saying, to great laughter, “this may seem tiresome”.

9.05pm: Kevin Hague (Greens, list) begins by acknowledging those who contributed to the submissions process, before again pointing up that “those of us working for this bill have no wish to restrict the religious freedom of others”.

Rather that “getting bogged down” the committee had looked to “put the matter beyond doubt” with an amendment explicitly making clear religious celebrants’ freedom to refuse certain unions.

Hague notes a “difference in world vie” between those who supported the bill and those who did not. The first group wanted to see “a pluralistic society” reflected in parliament. The second supported a “restricted set of values” based on Christian values, which should be enforced by lawmakers.

He concludes: “Mr Speaker, it’s time.”

9.07pm: A point of order from Tau Henare, the National list MP, who is cross that he has not been called to speak despite repeated efforts. Why not, he demands. I asked the whips for a guide, replies Speaker Roy. Henare objects that given it’s a free vote, whips are not the right arbiters of speaking priority. Sit down or I’ll boot you out, replies Roy.

9.17pm: Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (National, list) makes his case against the bill.

Marriage cannot be considered a basic human right, he says – for you are not, for example, permitted to marry close relatives.

He warns of the “grave implications” of redefining marriage, and the potential for “polygamous relationships” to demand recognition, while wondering aloud whether legal marriage status for gay people would “add sugar or flavour to their relationship”.

Marriage is a sacred institution, he argues, and should not be compromised by its extension beyond the one-woman-one-man definition. He “respsects the aspiration of homosexual people … however the social and legal argument … does not make a compelling case. My concern is to protect the unique status of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

9.25pm: Lianne Dalziel (Labour, Christchurch East) positions this latest legislation as the logical extension of earlier acts of parliament, from the homosexual law reform bill through to the civil union legislation.

One of the reasons there is “less noise” this time round in divisiveness over the change, is because “a lot of the dire predictions” that surrounded those previous bills simply did not come to pass.

She concludes by hoping that this will “go down in history as a day that we stood up for human rights”.

9.35pm: Tau Henare (National, list) is called. “Thank you for recognising me, on the eighth time.”

He begins by having a go at his own side for their “blatant gerrymandering of the process”. He has been “appalled by some of the behaviour I’ve seen tonight – the outright not-telling-the-truth”. I think – think – it’s a reference to being ignored by National whips in putting forward names to speak. Which is hardly gerrymandering, but there you go, nice word.

(Update: the Stuff report has more on Henare’s outburst … “He appeared to be referring to last minute manoeuvering among National MPs opposing the bill to rally support for an New Zealand First amendment demanding a referendum.”

He says of the bill: “It has nothing to do with my sanity, nothing to do with my happiness. It has to do with other people’s sanity, other people’s happiness.

And: “The sky is not going to fall in … It might not be a good thing to say because of the drought, but the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Erm, and rain is on the way. But not because of this.”

9.40pm: Here’s Jan Logie (Greens, list). For the Greens, she says, it’s not just a matter of conscience, it’s a matter of rights.

Logie says that the change would send a message to all those who bullied homosexual and queer people, “to know that as a society we’ve ended legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.

A strong speech, which wins a decent ovation.

9.48pm: Chester Borrows (National, Whanganui) speaks against the bill.

He says the issue is is how to recognise “the equality of longterm relationships and the status they have before the law”, and the current legislation does not achieve this.

He makes an interesting point about the impact of “fundamendal Christian lobbyists”. Speaking as a Christian, he says, it is “abhorrent the way various groups have acted throughout this debate”. The “threatening nature” of their correspondence had, he says, persuaded some of his colleagues who might have voted against the bill to support it.

9.50pm: That’s a wrap in the debate – now to the voting.

The first vote is to support the amendments recommended by the select committee. A personal vote is called, which means they’re on their feet and going through the doors. If there are more personal votes, things could be pushed out, and possibly prevent a vote on the bill itself tonight.

10pm: Amendments recommended by the select committee are supported by a vote of 66 to 21 with two amendments.

It’s unlikely to be a lot different in the main vote, though that will have more proxies, and there may be some who supported the amendments because they emphasise the religious freedoms of celebrants, but will still oppose the bill itself.

Now to a vote on Peters’ convoluted amendment which seeks a referendum on changes to the definition of marriage (see below, 9pm).

10.12pm: Winston Peters’ amendment seeking a referendum is defeated by 83-33.

Now to the big one.

As it cuts to the music on the parliamentary TV coverage, someone (the clerk?) can be heard saying to the Speaker, “Nearly there.” His reply: “Yip.”

10.20pm: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill is passed at its second reading with 77 ayes and 44 noes.

The bill will now progress to committee stage, then return to the house for a third and final reading, which could be just four weeks from now.

It will be interesting to see which four MPs drifted noe-ward, assuming that no one went the other way.

11.10pm: The four that changed their votes from the first reading are all National MPs: Gerry Brownlee, Jonathan Coleman, Murray McCully and Ian McKelvie. Raymond Huo, who did not vote first time round, was an aye (Huo explains here).

Otherwise, they voted as they did last time (see the imaginatively headed “How they voted last time”, below).

The tally sheets can be viewed here and here.

Here’s the Herald report on this evening’s proceedings. And Stuff’s. And from Parliament Today.

***

8.05pm: The debate on the Mondayisation bill is spluttering towards its conclusion. We should only be a few minutes away. (The debate has been put in chronological order above, just to confuse reverse scrollers.)

7.30pm: The house has resumed after the dinner break, and they’ve picked up debating David Clark’s Mondayisation bill, as it’s become known, which is likely to pass into law despite opposition from National. MPs have not hurried back from their supper: the chamber looks mostly empty. I expect they’ll start trickling in over the next 20 minutes, although the prime minister won’t be there: he’s somewhere in the South Pacific on the way back from his Latin American tour.

Eric Roy appears to be in the Speaker’s chair. Ross Robertson is in the Speaker’s chair (thanks for correction, Holly Walker). David Carter, who is having a miserable time in his new role, will be happy to leave it to the Assistant Speaker.

7.20pm: Members of the public are gathering to watch proceedings. According to one, there is already a “massive line outside Parliament”.

Wednesday March 13, noon: The second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Bill is now just eight hours away, if all runs to schedule. The New Zealand house of representatives is due to debate the legislation, fresh from its select committee phase, at 8pm, for two hours. Given the schedule it seems unlikely that it will get to a vote tonight.

I’ll be watching the debate tonight and blogging the highlights, with videos posted as soon as they’re made available.

Scroll down for a reminder, with video, of the way the debate went in the first reading. Or read the transcript here. The vote was a tidy two-to-one split.

How they voted last time

AYES (80)

National: Amy Adams, Chris Auchinvole, Maggie Barry, Paula Bennett, Jackie Blue, Gerry Brownlee, Cam Calder, David Carter, Jonathan Coleman, Judith Collins, Jacqui Dean, Craig Foss, Paul Goldsmith, Jo Goodhew, Tim Groser, Tau Henare, Paul Hutchison, Nikki Kaye, Steven Joyce, John Key, Murray McCully, Ian McKelvie, Hekia Parata, Jami-Lee Ross, Scott Simpson, Lockwood Smith, Chris Tremain, Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Maurice Williamson.

Labour: Jacinda Ardern, Charles Chauvel, David Clark, Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe, Clare Curran, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson, Kris Faafoi, Darien Fenton, Phil Goff, Chris Hipkins, Parekura Horomia, Shane Jones, Annette King, Iain Lees-Galloway, Andrew Little, Moana Mackey, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard, Sue Moroney, David Parker, Rajen Prasad, Grant Robertson, David Shearer, Maryan Street, Rino Tirikatene, Phil Twyford, Louisa Wall, Megan Woods.

Greens: Steffan Browning, David Clendon, Catherine Delahunty, Julie-Anne Genter, Kennedy Graham, Kevin Hague, Gareth Hughes, Jan Logie, Mojo Mathers, Russel Norman, Denise Roche, Metiria Turei, Eugenie Sage, Holly Walker.

Other: Pita Sharples, Te Ururoa Flavell, Tariana Turia (Maori Party); Peter Dunne (United Future); John Banks (ACT); Hone Harawira (Mana).

NOES

National: Shane Ardern, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, David Bennett, Chester Borrows, Simon Bridges, Bill English, Chris Finlayson, Nathan Guy, John Hayes, Phil Heatley, Colin King, Melissa Lee, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Tim Macindoe, Todd McClay, Mark Mitchell, Alfred Ngaro, Simon O’Connor, Eric Roy, Tony Ryall, Mike Sabin, Katrina Shanks, Nick Smith, Lindsay Tisch, Anne Tolley, Louise Upston, Michael Woodhouse, Jian Yang, Jonathan Young.

Labour: Damien O’Connor, Ross Robertson, Su’a William Sio

NZ First: Brendan Horan, Asenati Lole-Taylor, Tracey Martin, Winston Peters, Richard Prosser, Barbara Stewart, Andrew Williams, Denis O’Rourke.

DID NOT VOTE: Raymond Huo (Labour)

***

The New Zealand Herald this morning offers an overview of the select committee hearings, together with a handful of voices from either side of the argument. Having conducted a straw poll of the dozen or so MPs who voted in favour of the bill at the first reading while remaining undecided on their ongoing support, Isaac Davison only found one who said he’d be changing course and voting against in the second reading: Rangitikei’s Ian McKelvie.

The Press has the first of a three-part series on the bill, with a feature asking “how Canterbury’s gay community may be affected if same-sex marriage becomes legal”.

Tuesday March 12, 11.30am: Things are gettig dirty as the hours count down to tomorrow’s second reading. A hyperbolic, and at times semi-literate, flyer is being distributed warning of the dangers of allowing the bill to progress and urging people to contact their MP. The hyperbolic, unsigned document, which has been left under car wipers predominantly it seems in Auckland, puzzlingly warns that “costs from various illnesses (syphilis, mental illness, AIDS etc) will bring about more medical expenses to be covered by our tax”, and that the words mother, father, husband and wife are being banned “throughout the world”.

Read the whole thing here.

The Church Network group has meanwhile issued an open letter opposing the bill, adding that if it proves unstoppable an amendment should be made to prevent discrimination against teachers or others who believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But not all Christians are opposed to the legislation, point out the Christians For Marriage Equality group, who argue what it says on the tin.

David Farrar, the former National staffer and Kiwiblogger, surveys the global trend towards marriage equality, concluding:

… there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry, as today’s generation are bemused by the fact that once women couldn’t vote.  I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

And at Pundit, Tim Watkin reviews the shift in public opinion on the issue and assesses the campaign of the bill’s opponents – which might have been better targetted directly at MPs, he suggests. Watkin says he would not be surprised to see the majority shrink a bit tomorrow night from the 80-40 split last time round.

Monday March 11, 11am: Louisa Wall and Colin Craig appeared on the year’s first Q+A programme on Sunday morning. Conservative Party leader Craig echoed the Family First argument that the process had been rushed, and claimed that the tide of public opinion was turning against the bill.

Craig and Wall play Rock, Paper, Scissors.

A transcript is here.

As some pointed out, one of the most significant things about Craig’s appearance on the show was that producers appeared unable to attract any parliamentarians to argue the case. The cross-party support for the bill was underlined this morning by a press release from youth wings of all eight parties represented in parliament announcing they have “come together to show their support for marriage equality”.

Meanwhile in this morning’s Herald, family lawyer Norman Elliott argues that a bill about marriage is no place to change the law relating to adoption.

Wednesday March 6, 11am: A satirical video from the US, “The Ultimate Anti-Gay Marriage Ad” has been circulating online.

Monday March 4, 4pm: A fresh flurry of op-eds have appeared in the NZ Herald over recent days, sparked by Anglican minister’s Ron Hay piece arguing that gay marriage would be deleterious to “the common good”.

A rejoinder to Hay from council worker and theology student Russell Hoban.

And another from research student Sam Clements.

But a vote of support for Hay from Waikato University religious studies professor, Douglas Pratt. His concluding paragraph includes the following questionable analogy:

We are all different, and the point is to affirm and celebrate difference not gloss it with the false equality of apparent, or honorary, sameness. That is what happened when Maori were accorded the status of honorary whites in order to play rugby in apartheid South Africa, for example. We rightly objected.

***

Meanwhile, Family First are arguing that the selected committee “rushed the process”.

That’s nonsense, counters Kiwiblog’s David Farrar.

Wednesday February 27, 12.30pm: The  First off the blocks on the blogs is No Right Turn. A supporter of the bill, Idiot/Savant is nonetheless appalled by the suggested amendment to allow religious celebrants to refuse to participate in marriages that conflict with their religious views. It is, he says, a “bigot amendment”:

This is far narrower than similar US amendments (which basically add an “except for faggots” clause to anti-discrimination law, allowing discrimination in the provision of housing as well as the solemnisation of marriages), and in practice the issue is never likely to come up (because who wants their marriage solemnised by a person who doesn’t want to do it?), but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate such discrimination. Instead, its now writing it into statute.

Wednesday February 27, 11.30am: The Government Administration Select Committee has recommended that the bill be passed.

The committee’s report, which runs to 21 pages (of which the first seven are the substantial part), can be read here (PDF).

The second reading is expected to take place on March 13.

The Herald‘s first take for news is here.

Some important bits from the committee report, emphasis mine:

The Government Administration Committee has examined the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed with the amendments shown …Some of us believe that this bill is unnecessary on the grounds that the union of same-sex couples is already provided for under the existing civil union legislation passed in 2004.

***

Most of us consider that marriage should be extended to couples of the same sex, because the law should be applied equally … The majority of us consider that marriage is a human right, and that it is unacceptable for the state to deny this right to same-sex couples. Others of us believe that marriage is not a right, and should continue to be the sole domain of heterosexual couples.

***

A large number of people and organisations have expressed their concern that, were this bill to pass, celebrants could not lawfully refuse to solemnise a marriage that would conflict with their religious beliefs … We recommend an amendment to section 29 of the Marriage Act … to clarify beyond doubt that no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnise a marriage by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnise if solemnising that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

***

At present, married transgender people wanting their sex changed on their birth record (to enable them to fully adopt the gender of their choice) must either divorce their spouse or change their relationship from a marriage to a civil union … We consider that transgender people should be able to change sex without being subject to these constraints. The bill as consequentially amended would enable any transgender people to continue to be married regardless of their gender identity.

***

We note that currently under the law a homosexual or transgender person may legally adopt a child, but same-sex couples may not. Such a position seems absurd. The amendments we recommend will ensure that married couples are eligible to adopt, regardless of the gender of the adoptive parents.

And the concluding remarks:

The introduction of the bill has encouraged New Zealanders to engage in a robust debate over the institution of marriage. We acknowledge that people hold sincere and strong beliefs over the importance of this institution. Some New Zealanders are strongly in favour of enabling same-sex couples to marry and others are strongly against such a proposition. The passion with which submitters made their arguments to us was palpable. We commend all those people who took the time to make a submission.

We were impressed by the participation of young people in this debate. We received heartfelt submissions from youth on both sides of the debate. We are heartened that so many of the younger generation, which is so often maligned as uninterested in politics and marriage, chose to involve themselves in this debate.

The committee also recommend that clause 2 (see bottom of blog) be amended to delay the commencement, allowing four months after the bill gains royal assent before it comes into effect “to allow the Department of Internal Affairs to prepare for its implementation”.

All the submissions can be viewed online here.

The report confirms the following details:

21,533 Submissions received

18,898 Replicated similar content (chiefly generic submissions)

10,487 Supported the Bill

8,148 Opposed the Bill

220 Submissions were heard

From the press release issued by Lousia Wall, sponsor of the marriage (definition of marriage) bill:

“This is another important milestone towards achieving a fairer more equal New Zealand,” Wall said …  “Chair Ruth Dyson ran a robust and thorough process that gave New Zealanders a free and frank forum for discussion.

 “I want to extend a special thanks to everyone who submitted to the committee. Suggested amendments have been reported back to Parliament and have helped make the intent of the Bill crystal clear.

 “Marriage equality is about fairness and choice. This process has showed that that message has really resonated with New Zealanders and has been echoed overseas with the recent passage of similar legislation in the UK.

 “We have seen a high level of engagement in the debate and I am looking forward to taking the Bill through to its second phase,” Louisa Wall said.

Monday February 11, 2pm: The leading organisation opposing the legislation that would allow same-sex marriage have stepped up their campaign, publishing 100,000 leaflets encouraging supporters to lobby the 21 MPs considered the most likely to switch their vote to oppose the bill – or as the Herald mischievously puts it, the “swinging MPs” – chiefly those who have voted in an arguably inconsistent fashion on same-sex marriage/union.

The Family First pamphlet can be found here (PDF).

It begins with this image.

My immediate response is to worry that he’s going to put out his back doing that.

Wednesday February 6, 9.30am: The British House of Commons has voted to support a bill legalising same-sex marriage at its second reading.

Here’s a summary from the Guardian’s live-blog maestro Andrew Sparrow:

MPs have voted for the gay marriage bill by 400 votes to 175 – a majority of 225. Such a large majority probably increases the chances of the bill being able to get through the House of Lords this year, without the government having to rely on the Parliament Act to push it through in 2014.

More than half of the Tory MPs who voted chose to oppose gay marriage. Initial figures suggest that 139 Tories voted against, and only 132 voted for. Technically this is not a rebellion, because it was a free vote. But it is a severe embarrassment to David Cameron.

For more detail on the detail and status of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2012-13, see this page at the UK parliamentary site.

Amusing tweet of the day goes to UK Labour MP Lucy Powell:

Tuesday February 6, 9am: France is moving closer to legalising same-sex marriage, with an important vote taking place despite vocal protest. From AFP:

France’s National Assembly overwhelmingly approved a key piece of legislation that will allow homosexual couples to marry and adopt children, to the delight of gay activists.

Deputies voted 249-97 in favour of Article One of the draft law, which redefines marriage as being a contract between two people rather than necessarily between a man and a woman.

Although the proposed law still faces at least another week of scrutiny before a final vote scheduled for February 12, it now looks set to emerge from parliament without delay and undiluted.

Friday February 1, 1.30pm: The select committee wagon parked this week in Christchurch. Author and blogger Emma Hart was among those appearing.  “The whole experience was brilliant,” she writes.  Christchurch also saw the introduction of a new word: “Gayrriage” – a neologism offered by an opponent of the bill, explains Hart, to provide same-sex couples with a term that avoids clouding the existing institution.

Wednesday January 24, 11.30am: This blog has been in an unintended hibernation. Apologies.

A quick summary of recent developments …

Select committee oral submissions continue – they’ve most recently been held in Auckland. Simon Collins has been there  for the NZ Herald.

Today he reports on two very different perspectives from two sets of parents – excellent reading.

Most of the attention so far has been for submissions from opponents of the bill, in various flavours of outrage. Most remarkably, Garth McVicar was revealed to have argued there is a link between gay marriage and crime rates. Then there was the Conservative Party’s Colin Craig, and Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

GayNZ.com’s summary of the hearings is here.

***

The NZ Parliament site has now posted the written submissions online. You can trawl through the documents – by my rough count it’s more than 2,000 – here.

***

Other bits of news from the last couple of months, domestically and overseas:

• Louisa Wall rejected claims that the legislation could open the door to legal polygamy.

• A billboard depicting the Pope blessing a gay marriage attracted attention.

• The UK government pushed ahead with plans to legalise gay marriage.

• Rival protest groups clashed in France over gay marriage proposals.

• Tasmania inched towards becoming the first Australian state to legalise same-sex marriage.

• Barack Obama explicitly mentioned gay rights in his inauguration speech.

Monday November 19, 2012, 12.30pm: I’ll round up more of the coverage from, and, where available, submissions to the select committee soon, but in the meantime, via Salon, here’s a US ad advocating the legalisation of gay marriage, featuring Morgan Freeman:

Wednesday November 14, 1.00pm: The Herald has a good wrapup of early submissions here.

GayNZ.com meanwhile reports that owing to the number of submissions, the select committee will not hear in person from those who made “form-based” submissions (ie, those that involved completing pre-written submissions, form letters, etc). bill-supporting Green MP and committee member Kevin Hague is quote as saying:

Even so, we somehow need to grapple with thousands of individuals and groups who wish to be heard. We will certainly be taking extra meeting days, but may also need to restrict oral submissions further to meet our report-back deadline of 28 February.

Wednesday November 14, 2.00pm: The Government Administration Select Committee is now hearing submissions on the bill. The total number of written submissions has been estimated at more than 20,000.

It hasn’t taken long for the first bit of controversey at the committee. Stuff reports:

Former United Future MP Gordon Copeland has compared gay marriage to apartheid, saying allowing gay people to marry was like calling the New Zealand Maori rugby team “honorary whites”. The comments … sparked condemnation from MPs. Copeland told the committee he opposed the bill, which would “debase” marriage by broadening its definition to include same-sex couples.

Louisa Wall was last week the first to make a submission. Her written submission is the only one so far available on the parliament site (read it in full here – PDF).

It concludes with the following:

One’s sexual self-determination should not limit in any form one’s rights of citizenship. The basic principle of citizenship is that it is a right of descent and birth and in a modern democracy it is about the relationship people have with the land they call home. To limit rights of citizenship based on non-heterosexuality status contradicts the fundamental rights of citizenship conferred by descent, dwelling and birth and in a modern democratic society all citizens must be entitled to all rights extended by the State. To perpetuate inequality and discrimination once it is exposed is unjustified and irrational. If we do not act, we condone it and in Aotearoa New Zealand it is time for appropriate legislative action to realise marriage equality for all of our citizens.

Friday October 26, 12.00pm: Last orders. Submit your written thoughts on the bill that would legalise gay marriage by 5pm today or you’ll have to stick them in a drawer with other stuff you never got around to finishing. The magic of the internet means you can do it all online – for or against – by clicking here.

Monday September 17, 9am: The select committee is now inviting submissions on the marriage (defintion of marriage) bill. The deadline is October 26, and you can even do it online if that’s your style. Go here.

Tuesday September 11, 11am: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill will head to the government administration select committee for the first time on Wednesday. More details here.

Meanwhile, David Winter dissects Colin Craig – or rather, has a look at his scientific claims, here.

Monday September 3, 10am: Colin Craig has made clear his political positioning: less gay than John Key. The Conservative party leader has written a letter to the prime minister’s Helensville constituents advising that Key is “too gay” for them.

Thursday August 30, 10pm: As you’d expect, a flurry of reportage and commentary around the place today. Rather than feebly duplicate the sterling work of Bryce Edwards, I suggest you read his roundup at Politics Daily. Lots of links to lots of reading.

Thursday August 30, 11.30am: Louisa Wall underlined last night that the legislation was riding a wave of international change. For a summary of the various legislatures pursuing same-sex marriage see Ken Williams’ roundup, “Is 2012 Shaping Up As the Year of Marriage Equality?”, for the US LBGTQ Nation.

And here’s how most of the world will read about last night’s vote in NZ – the Associated Press report by Nick Perry, which includes an interesting comment from Wall, suggesting that Barack Obama’s support has been instrumental.

And here’s the Listener‘s Jane Clifton on the 11 MPs who swung from opposing civil unions a few years back to supporting gay marriage last night.

Wednesday August 29, 11.15pm: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill will proceed to select committee stage after passing its first reading. A personal vote came in at 78 (updated to) 80 votes in favour of Louisa Wall’s bill, which would enable same-sex marriage, with 40 against, and no abstentions. With predictions ranging around the high 60s (of 121 MPs), it represents a big victory for the bill’s proponents. Not yet home and hosed, but it’s difficult to see how the bill could stumble from here.

Especially if the quality of opponents’ debate stays at the level demonstrated tonight. Guyon Espiner put it this way on Twitter: “Not one coherent argument offered against same sex marriage tonight. Just fear and cowardice hiding behind process and politics.”

See how the MPs voted here. It initially appeared that among the no-shows was one Hon John Banks, but he is now reported to have cast a proxy vote in favour.

The best speeches of the night came from Nikki Kaye (National), Kevin Hague (Greens) and, surprisingly, Paul Hutchison (National).

A telling quick number-crunch from David Farrar: “National MPs voted narrowly in favour of marriage equality – 30 votes to 29. Amazing, as only 3 or 4 voted for civil unions.” (More here.)

The first reading debate – summaries and video

Lousia Wall (Labour, Manurewa)
First was the bill’s sponsor. No soaring rhetoric here, and perhaps a touch of nerves in play. Wall was pushing a conciliatory line, emphasising that freedom of religion remained, and churches and celebrants would not be obliged to marry any couple that did not conform to their moral standards.

Wall also pushed the historic function of the legislation. The “starting point rests with our role on the international stage”, she said – which not every supporter of the bill would necessarily agree with. She went on to point to NZ’s history of advocating international human rights, of suffrage, and of homosexual law reform.

There was also a potted history of marriage – which in parts amounted a pretty strong argument to do away with the institution of marriage altogether.

She explained what the bill would mean for adoption law and cases in which a spouse has a sex change.

“Today is the time,” Wall concluded, to remove the prejudice implicit in the marriage act – something “we have a duty as a parliament to rectify”.

Wall received a long ovation in the house. I counted about 27 seconds.

Nikki Kaye (National, Auckland Central)
Nikki Kaye followed with a stirring speech, mixing the philosophical and personal, and exhorting her fellow MPs to embrace “what binds us together … [a] shared sense of justice and fairness”.

The major argument against the change, an appeal to tradition, could not hold, she said. “If we had accepted in this parliament arguments of tradition, the women would not have won the vote.”

While few could have expected Ronald Reagan to get a mention tonight, there were also namechecks for Marilyn Waring and Jenny Shipley.

Kaye pointed to the “huge LGBT community” in her electorate, and highlighted the alarming rate of suicide among young gay people. “This parliament has an opportunity … to help change that.”

Su’a William Sio (Labour, Mangere)
The Mangere MP had made life diffcult for Wall and the Labour leader a few weeks ago (see August 8), and here he delivered a largely apologetic argument against the bill, stressing that the issue is “very sensitive for many in my constituency, within the Pacific and faith community, even within my own family.”

Such legislation, he said, would “change … the fundamental basis of marriage. This change would have enduring ramifications for future generations. We do not know what the ramifications are.”

Kevin Hague (Greens, list)
The Green MP Kevin Hague withdrew his own marriage equality bill from the ballot when Wall’s was drawn last month. And his passion on the subject was clear, as he articulated the “terrible burden” being faced by young LBGT people – something in large part a result of the “message that the state currently sends through this discriminatory view”.

His own same-sex relationship was 28 years long this month, he noted – a record that few MPs’ marriages, he suggested, could match. Twenty-eight years ago, moreover, his relationship could have seen him and his partner arrested, imprisoned, “for being who we are and expressing our love”.

In answer to those who objected to marriage beyond the man-woman structure, Hague quoted: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I light somebody else’s”. He concluded: “It is up to you on which side of history you will be remembered.”

Winston Peters (NZ First, list)
For Peters, the sight of a conscience vote was unconscionable – more evidence of “an assumption in this house that it knows better than members of the public when it comes to matters of morality.”

He and his colleagues would be voting against in the absence of provision for a referendum, he said.

Tim Macindoe (National, Hamilton West)
Macindoe spoke up for Christian and church values. He insisted he had given the matter serious thought, but as “the family has come under increasing attack”, he was opposing its passage.

David Clark (Labour, Dunedin North)
Clark, a Presbyterian minister, said he too had thought long and hard, and taken counsel from many people. But he was an aye.

Paul Hutchison (National, Hunua)
The most dramatic rhetorical moment of the evening came from Paul “The Hutch” Hutchison. He had been described by the NZ Herald as an MP who would vote against the bill – but not so fast, he said.

“I cannot construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or even spiritual argument against [the bill],” he said. “Consequently, I will be voting for it.”

John Hayes (National, Wairarapa)
It was all about the “majority view in my electorate,” said the man from the Wairarapa. He continued to elaborate on this basic point until the final bell had been rung and the speaker instructed him to take his seat. At which he burbled out: “So they want me to vote against the bill.”

Jami-Lee Ross (National, Botany)
Ross made the case for the bill on the basis of the values of equality to which he subscribed, and which had led him to the National party. It made sense, he said, to extend marriage to same-sex couples, as the institution was one that embodied strong, loving relationships.

Louisa Wall, in reply
“It’s a simple choice,” said Wall. “Do we support discriminating laws or not?”

Significantly, she paid tribute to the poweful role young people had played in the debate – a point made by a number of speakers in favour of the bill this evening.

The votes are counted. You might want to fast-forward much of this.

Wednesday August 29, 11am: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is scheduled to receive its first hearing today in parliament (PDF). It appears likely that a majority of MPs, most voting according to their conscience, will support the bill, which will see it sent into the lush idyll of select committee debate.

The latest tally at MarriageEquality.co.nz looks like this: Yes 65; No 15; No/abstain 8; undecided 8; unknown 25. The Herald’s count, infographicked up here, says 66 will vote in favour. That leaves a bit of breathing space for Louisa Wall and supporters – you’d be brave to bet against it progressing.

Parliament Today notes, however, that “it will take careful time management to get to a vote on it this evening”. But we should see “a vote before 10pm if there are no delays, urgent debates or roadblocks put in the way”.

As supporters even now gather in Wellington’s Civic Square for a rally ahead of a march to the big politics house, here’s a roundup of some of the important news, analysis and commentary from recent days.

A petition from 50,000 people opposed to marriage equality has been delivered to parliament.

The New Zealand Herald at last inks an editorial on the subject this morning, with the headline: “Society more relaxed over gay marriage”. It’s hardly a full throated endorsement of the bill, but in essence suggests that the public mood has moved to the point where it should be passed.

The Herald also sports a column from Bruce Logan – “Same-sex marriage threatens civil liberty” – which is by contrast full-throated in its opposition to the change.

A surprise vote in favour of the bill will come from John Banks, the parliamentary embodiment of the ACT party. Remember, it was he, as a National MP in 1986, who said as the homosexual law reform bill passed: “This day will be remembered as a sad and sickening day for New Zealand.”

Why then is he backing this bill? “Because I am.” I am increasingly convinced the man is an invention of Alfred Jarry.

If Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford thought he’d be lauded by marriage equality advocates for his eventual decision to support the bill, he was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Conservative party leader Colin Craig has responded to Steve Braunias‘s satircal diary column in rather puzzling fashion. Puzzling in that he makes no reference to the substance of the diary, including its roaring overarching homoerotic theme.

The youth wings of National, Labour, Green, Mana and Act parties have issued a joint statement urging all their MPs to vote in favour of the bill at its first reading.

Tamati Coffey of TV One Breakfast has been very busy waving the marriage equality flag, including on Twitter, where he garnered scores of supportive responses, including one from an All Black. Here he is writing for Stuff.

David Kiwiblog Farrar, in the first of a series of posts on the subject, rounds up the conservative case for gay marriage here.

Newstalk ZB’s Felix Marwick has made a rare dip into the world of opinion writing. He thinks the marriage equality bill should be backed.

Pastors in south Auckland have been piling on pressure against the bill, but Wellington church St Matthew’s in the City has announced it will erect a pro-bill billboard, with a pair of women kissing on a cake (tastefully), emblazoned, “St Matthew’s Doesn’t Care Who’s On Top”. Which doesn’t quite seem the most coherent bit of copywriting. But you get what they mean.

And someone has mischievously registered familyfirst.co.nz and redirected it to a pro-marriage-equality site. (The firsters’ home is in fact familyfirst.org.nz.)

More later.

Tuesday August 28, 10pm: The bill is scheduled to be debated in parliament for the first time tomorrow – see the draft order paper (PDF).

Coverage of the exchanges will appear here – along with a roundup of activity over recent days (including a surprise announcement by John Banks). Apologies for lack of updates. I’ve been having a lovely holiday.

Monday August 20, 1.30pm: Garth George has spoken. The former Herald columnist and moralist tub-thumper argues in the Rotorua Daily Post why marriage should remain the “exclusive preserve of heterosexuals”: because “by their very nature, homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce, except through IVF treatments or by the use of surrogate fathers or mothers”.

GG goes on to say: “The original meaning of gay was light-hearted and carefree, yet no homosexual I’ve ever met could be so described.”

Emma Hart‘s response at the Lady Garden – “Dear Garth George, I love you” – is worth a read.

Wednesday August 15, 2.00pm: A number of newspapers have editorialised on the proposed legislation. Here’s a roundup.

From the Christchurch Press (August 8): “The strongest argument of all is this: New Zealanders should not discriminate. Once, mixed-race marriages would have been frowned upon, along with unions which crossed the boundaries of class or religion. We have rightly moved beyond all that. Now is the time to move beyond this barrier, and let people declare love and be acknowledged for who they are.”

The Waikato Times (August 1) appeared ambivalent in an editorial headlined “A socially divisive bill”: “The fence-sitters on his team have been given a steer and the bill is likely to get enough support to be sent to a select committee. That’s when the public’s arguments for and against must be carefully weighed.”

The Southland Times (July 31): “Those for whom marriage is special for what it excludes, rather than for what it embraces, are becoming proportionately fewer. New Zealand should be ready for gay marriage. We hope it is.”

The Manawatu Standard (July 30), in an editorial penned by Warwick Rasmussen, wrote: “Those who were against civil unions feared all kinds of horrible things would happen to our society if that proposal passed into law. Guess what? Those things never happened. The only real impact was that couples got the chance to live the lives they wanted to. Allowing gay marriage is the next natural step in that progression.”

The Marlborough Express (July 30): “This legislation will not lead to the degradation of society; it will give same-sex couples the same matrimonial rights as their brothers and sisters, their neighbours and workmates. This bill should be passed without taking up too much debating time in the House.”

As previously noted (see Monday August 6), the Dominion Post thinks the bill is a jolly good idea.

As far as I’m aware, we are yet to get editorials on the subject from the New Zealand Herald or the Otago Daily Times.

The Listener’s Jane Clifton says: “What you won’t vote for is just as revealing as what you will. And the consequences of that choice can haunt MPs for years.”

NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa wrote on Monday in favour of the bill.

In the Dominion Post, Rosemary McLeod was left baffled by the enduring popularity of the tainted institution of marriage.

And Steve Braunias has stolen Colin Craig’s private diary and published excerpts.

Wednesday August 8, 4.00pm: Labour’s Pacific Island Affairs spokesperson and Mangere MP, Su’a William Sio, has opened an internal debate by calling for the marriage equality bill to be withdrawn. He told Radio New Zealand that it risks damaging the party by repelling Pacific Island voters, churchgoers particularly. Wall has dismissed the call, and doubts have been raised over the suggestion that Maori and Pacific people are more likely to disappove of the proposed change.

Never one for understatement, 3 News’s Patrick Gower says of the development: “The gay marriage bill has started to tear the Labour Party to pieces.”  What is more, the legislation “seems to be the gift that keeps on giving – for John Key and Colin Craig”.

Meanwhile, more than 20,000 people have reportedly signed a Family First petition opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

Monday August 6, 5.00pm: A handful of commentary pieces from recent days …

An editorial in the Dominion Post this morning weighs in behind the bill:

The law as it stands belongs to a society that disappeared long ago. It is discriminatory and it is time it was changed.

Michael Laws in the Sunday Star Times says it’s no big deal, but that it should nevertheless be decided – as Winston Peters has argued – by a plebiscite.

Rodney Hide in the Herald on Sunday frames a cogent historical argument in favour of the bill.

Here’s a transcript of Louisa Wall and Colin Craig debating the issue on TV3’s The Nation.

And a Colmar Brunton poll puts support for the marriage equality bill at 63%.

Thursday August 2, 3.00pm: The sponsor of the marriage definitions bill, Labour’s Louisa Wall, and the Conservative party leader, Colin Craig, have taken part in a Stuff chat this afternoon. The main newsline emerging seems to be Craig’s suggestion that the bill paves the way for polygamy.

Wednesday August 1, 9.30am: RNZ’s Morning Report has conducted a “straw poll” of New Zealand MPs, finding that 58 have decided (“definitely”) to vote yes at the first reading and only eight against. Of the undecided, “enough said they were leaning towards yes to get numbers over the 61 votes required”.

Meanwhile, 3 News had another bash yesterday at getting MPs to explain their positions.

Tuesday July 31, 2.30pm: The New Zealand First party has announced in a statement that its eight MPs will “not vote for” the bill. Why? Because they believe it should go to a referendum. In vintage Winston Peters style, confusion has been sewn over whether they will abstain or vote against.

The latest tally of MPs’ likely votes, based on NZ First voting “No”: Yes 52;  No 22; Undecided 11; Unknown 39. The bill needs 61 votes to progress.

Monday July 30, 1.05pm: The most significant development of the day is John Key’s signal that he’ll support the marriage equality bill all the way. See below for that. Here are some of the other developments since Friday:

A coalition including Family First has launched Protect Marriage, a website making the case against legalising same-sex marriage. Their strapline: “one man. one woman. that’s marriage.”

At GayNZ.com, Red Queen reviews the Protect Marriage site – “Everything about this website screams shoddy rush job.”

The site has been wobbly all morning, with large periods of outage, if you will. It has other problems. The NZ Herald reports that the San Francisco band Train have ordered that they remove one of their songs from the site.

The Marriage Equality site is offering a tool to generate an email to your MP.

David Farrar of Kiwiblog has fisked Conservative leader Colin Craig’s statements on the subject, including his “ignorant and offensive” suggestion in a TV3 interview that “people choose to be gay rather than being born that way, many as a result of being abused as children”.

Danyl Mclauchlan of Dim-Post has written “sort of standing up for the Conservative Party on their opposition to gay marriage”. He also suggests that John Key’s statement today makes the passage of the bill essentially a “done deal”. (See also Patrick Gower’s blog post, mentioned below, Friday July 27, 2.30pm.)

Monday July 30, 11.20am: The prime minister has indicated that he will support the bill in its passage through parliament. John Key told Radio Live this morning:

You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh.

He had previously signalled he’d back the bill in its first reading, but the suggestion that he’ll back it all the way could well influence a number of his parliamentary colleagues who have previously been much too busy to mull the issue over.

Key added:

There will be plenty of people in our caucus who will be deeply opposed – particularly the very religious ones, and I can understand that,” he said.

I think it’s quite healthy that New Zealand has the debate, I suspect it won’t be what it was when you looked at homosexual law reform in the 70s – I don’t think it will be that dramatic.

Friday July 27, 2.30pm: The most telling take on the political impact of the bill so far came from 3 News. MPs scatter like a lolly scramble on rewind on the question of how they’ll vote. Lots of dodging the question. Watch it here.

The people at the New Zealand for Marriage Equality campaign have updated their rough tally (see Thursday 2.10pm). It now looks like this: Yes 55; No 15; Undecided 10; Unknown 41. Still five off a majority for the first reading, but that shouldn’t be a problem. The crucial vote will come later.

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser and leader of the Conservative party (who have no MPs) Colin Craig have made their views clear on Twitter.

Also on Twitter, Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford (Labour) was coming under plenty of pressure last night over his position – that he’ll consult with constituents before deciding which way to go.

Commentary

Blogging at 3News.co.nz, Patrick Gower says “Whether John Key says ‘I do’ or ‘I don’t’ to same-sex marriage will decide whether or not the bill passes” – and he suggests an interesting scenario: that Key supporting the bill could empower the Conservative party, therefore providing National with a more stable ongoing coalition partner.

Having watched that 3 News clip, Emma Hart warns, at Public Address, to expect plenty of “barefaced weaselling” from politicians.

Rightwing blogger Cameron Slater has called Colin Craig’s tweet (see above) “outrageous”, adding, “We don’t need this sort of intolerance in our society.”

And Scott Yorke of Imperator Fish does satire in “Same-sex marriage bill a threat to civilisation”.

Finally for now, Bill English has said that the marriage equality bill is not a priority for him – it’s the economy he’s interested in. So advocates might like to make the case for the economic stimulus that allowing gay marriage might provide. It’s safe to assume that wedding-based businesses would welcome the potential for a new market. Perhaps people could be attracted from across the Tasman even. Just look at New York: legalised gay marriage has reportedly brought in US $259m to New York in a year.

Thursday 26 July, 3.30pm: Some statements on the bill …

The Young Nats: “We support marriage equality and will be lobbying National Members of Parliament to do the same.”

Green party announces support.

Hone Harawira “said that on behalf of MANA he would be proud to support Miss Wall’s bill at first reading and looked forward to further discussions with her about the future of her bill”.

And in the Olympic spirit, there may be a race between Scotland and New Zealand to see which country will legislate first.

Thursday 26 July, 2.10pm: A site campaigning for marriage equality has a list of MPs’ positions on the issue. Their assessment of the number of MPs likely to support the bill at first reading is given as “Yes: 57  No: 15  Undecided: 7  Unknown: 42.”

The site says “this information is based on emails, conversations and reports contained on news sites or other blogs”, and acknowledges there many be errors (for example, Hone Harawira’s position appears less clear-cut than a simple “no” [update, 2.35pm, Harawira has told reporters he will vote in favour of the bill at first reading, which contradicts the marriage equality group’s account), but assuming that’s broadly right, the bill will only need to garner four more yes votes to go through its first reading at least.

H/T @ghetshum

The site YourNZ is also busy compiling MPs’ statements on the issue.

To get a sense of the shifting public attitudes on gay rights issues (and the way public sentiment has paved the way for legislative change), read Russell Brown’s post from 2004.

Thursday 26 July, 1.30pm: Among respondents in a One News Colmar Brunton poll conducted in June 63% of eligible voters said they believe same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. Many MPs say they vote on conscience issues (this is very likely to be one) according to the view in their constituency. John Key – who has said he’ll support such a bill in its first reading – has indicated he will take his guidance from the people of Helensville. Including Kim Dotcom, perhaps.

Speaking of Kim Dotcom, the gods seem to be in playful mood today. The marriage equality bill was drawn from the ballot at almost precisely the same time that the police formally announced they would not be laying charges against Act MP John Banks over anonymous donations from Dotcom in an earlier mayoral campaign.

Pressed on those donations and his relationship with Dotcom back in April, remember, Banks garbled: “What’s your relationship? This is offensive! He’s a married man, what are you talking about? … I’ve had no relationship with Dotcom – he’s got a wife … I have never had a relationship with Dotcom, he is a married man.”

Which seems sort of apposite.

Oh, and one more thing on the MP for Epsom. It was he, of course who said on the passing of the homosexual law reform bill in 1986: “This day will be remembered as a sad and sickening day for New Zealand.”

Seems unlikely the bill will proceed unanimously.

Thursday 26 July, 2012, 1.00pm: The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was drawn from the members’ bill ballot today.

Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill would legalise same-sex marriage. The key passage from the explanatory note: “The bill … will ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity will have the opportunity to marry if they so choose.”

It will almost certainly be subject to a conscience vote in parliament.

Prime minister John Key has said he will vote in favour at the first reading. It is likely to proceed to select committee stage at very least, where the debate will be fascinating to watch.

Below is the (slightly abridged) draft bill; read in full in the PDF here.

DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Member’s Bill

Explanatory note

General policy statement

This Bill amends the Marriage Act 1955 (the principal Act) to ensure that its provisions are not applied in a discriminatory manner. The principal Act does not define marriage and makes no reference to a marriage being between a man and a woman. Essentially the principal Act sets out the technical requirements for the civil regulation of marriage. However, couples, other than a man and a woman, have not been permitted to obtain marriage licences under the principal Act.

This Bill will make it clear that a marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It will ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity will have the opportunity to marry if they so choose. Marriage, as a social institution, is a fundamental human right and limiting that human right to 1 group in society only does not allow for equality. This Bill will ensure that there is equality for people wishing to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity and will be in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 …

The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

1 Title

This Act is the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2012.

2 Commencement

This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

3 Principal Act

This Act amends the Marriage Act 1955 (the principal Act).

4 Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to clarify that a marriage is between 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

5 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

In section 2(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: “marriage means the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity”.

6 Schedule 2 replaced

Replace Schedule 2 with the Schedule 2 set out in the Schedule of this Act.

Schedule 2 s 15(1)

Prohibited degrees of marriage

(1) A person may not marry their—

(a) grandparent:

(b) parent:

(c) child:

(d) grandchild:

(e) sibling:

(f) parent’s sibling:

(g) sibling’s child:

(h) grandparent’s spouse or civil union partner:

(i) parent’s spouse or civil union partner:

(j) spouse’s or civil union partner’s parent:

(k) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandparent:

(l) spouse’s or civil union partner’s child:

(m) child’s spouse or civil union partner:

(n) grandchild’s spouse or civil union partner:

(o) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandchild.

(2) The prohibited degrees of marriage apply whether the relationships described are by the whole blood or by the half blood.

(3) In this Schedule, spouse and civil union partner includes a former spouse or former civil union partner, whether alive or deceased, and whether the marriage or civil union was terminated by death, dissolution, or otherwise.