Haverstick 1
Amber Haverstick
July 14, 14
Kristin Messuri
Acceptance and Progress
There are 196 countries in the world today and only a small fraction has the ability to
wed same sex marriages. Over the course of the United States’ history alone, our society, our
laws, our culture, and our perception of others has evolved. On a worldly perspective, these
improvements are flourishing throughout societies and are inspiring individuals to continue to
make progress and change. Maurice Williamson, a member of the New Zealand Parliament,
produced a motivating speech to the Parliament regarding the controversial issue at hand. His
presentation to his audience was engaging, humorous, and substantial. Before becoming the
thirteenth nation in the world to successfully pass the Gay Marriage Bill, Maurice Williamson
highlighted the crucial and beneficial outcomes it would employ on the country using Logos,
Pathos, and Ethos appeals in his speech to the New Zealand Parliament.
Unlike any other speech, Williamson left the courtroom burst. His language and ability to
poke fun at the issue’s opposition left him with the final resolution for the bill. Throughout the
course of persuading Parliament, he paraded in and out of the reasons why the bill should not be
passed, and ultimately left the only rational decision, which was to pass the bill. He captivated
his audience by telling stories and encounters he had with individuals that had threatened him
and who fabricated “consequences” that would occur if the bill was passed. His tone for the four
minutes and six seconds that he spoke to Parliament was confident and reasonable.
Williamson used a variety of language to drawl in Parliament to his side of the issue.
Throughout his speech, the structure changed from retelling previous personal interactions with
people who had opposing opinions, to how Parliament could solve this controversy and show
how those who it does not pertain to how they will be unaffected. His use of “you” and “your”
Haverstick 2
targeted the audience and made it personal for each person in the courtroom. This bill does not
affect people other than those who are seeking same sex marriage; so by stating, “your teenage
daughter will still argue back with you as if she knows everything; your mortgage will not grow;
you will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed, sir” it shows how the bill is
irrelevant to the lives of those who aren’t striving to finally be able to marry their partner
(Williamson para. 9). By mentioning family, financial situations, and home, Williamson reaches
each crevice of a person’s personal life, and he exhibits how this bill can be life changing for
some, and unrelated for all those who it does not apply to. He then proceeds to say, “but for the
rest of us, life will go on” (Williamson para. 9). Williamson uses the word “us” to then
effectively show that he is a part of the greater picture, and that he is just like each of the
individuals making the decision in the bill. His choice in directing who he is speaking to
enhances the indulgence of his speech.
Williamson effectively chose points in his dialogue to direct to individuals and groups,
and he also successfully used the pathos appeal to lore emotion out of the audience in the process
of persuading Parliament. He addresses the issue of adoption and how gay parents will be
deemed the causation of bullying. He uses negative connotation when describing the “disgusting
claims about what adoption would be” (Williamson para. 5). He retorts this accusation by
explaining that he has three adopted children, and that he “gave up being scared of bullies when
[he] was in primary school” (Williamson para. 5). This evokes emotion from the audience by
bringing up adoption of children. Children are the most vulnerable and innocent people, and by
showing confidence in the adoption by gay parents it strengthens his argument. Next he focuses
on the literal marriage aspect. He reasons, “this bill is allowing two people who love each other
to have that love recognized by way of marriage” (Williamson para. 7). He describes them as
Haverstick 3
“two people” to reinforce that everyone is a person and deserves equality, whether or not they
are homosexual or heterosexual. He closes with referencing the storm that had taken place prior
to his speech that created as he points out “the most enormous big gay rainbow” (Williamson
para. 10). Rainbows are symbols of perfect harmonized colors that represent tranquility. When
Williamson describes it as a “gay rainbow” it finalizes his point that by passing the bill society
can be in unison. In this speech Williamson illuminates potential problems that have been
discussed by the opposition, and he drawls emotional appeal from countering the accusations.
As well as persuading the audience with feelings of sympathy and positive reasoning,
Williamson uses the logos device to install logic in his claims. A reverend was in his electorate
accusing him that “the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed” (Williamson para.
2). He clarified that it was a foolish threat and humorously questions if the “onslaught [will]
come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops, or whether it will be a gas that flows in
over the electorate and blocks [them] all in” (Williamson para. 2). He also received a letter
claiming that he “would burn in the fires of hell for eternity” if he supported the bill of same-sex
marriage. Despite the vulgar threat, he reasoned through his physics degree that burning for
eternity is not possible due to “[his] body weight and [his] humidity and so on. [He] assumed the
furnace to be at 5,000 degrees and [he] will last for just on 2.1 seconds” (Williamson para. 4).
Rather than exhibiting emotional fear of opposing opinions, he continued to strive through
supporting the bill. With the uproar of disagreement, Williamson reminds everyone “we are not
declaring nuclear war on a foreign State; we are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our
agricultural sector forever.” He takes the objective to logically evaluate the actual repercussions
if the bill was to pass. All possible outcomes of installing the bill into society were either
beneficial or irrelevant to the people of New Zealand. A huge case of opposition of the bill came
Haverstick 4
from the disapproval of the Catholic Church. The bible does not support same sex marriage, but
he also picked out a piece of the Bible that says, “Be ye not afraid” (Williamson para. 10). The
change that was coming was meant to be, and all cultures have to learn to accept gay marriage
whether they agree or not. Williamson’s strongest tactic in persuading Parliament was
illuminating the logic in each of the arguments for and against the sex same marriage bill.
On April 17th, 2013 New Zealand became the 13th nation in the world to pass the same
sex marriage bill. This was just one act that is guiding the country to equality. Despite the threats
and restless opposition against passing the bill, Parliament made the decision to continue and
allow gay marriage to exist in New Zealand society. Maurice Williamson had a memorable
speech in Parliament that day with his enthusiastic support of same sex marriage. Throughout his
speech he used numerous amounts of technique and rhetoric in his goal to persuade his audience.
Due to Williamson’s strong advocacy of the bill, the nation of New Zealand is now practicing
gay marriage. His colorful language led his audience to step through the biased tunnel and reach
clarity at the end. This speech stamped the mark to a new beginning for the people in New
Zealand.
Haverstick 5
Works Cited:
Williamson, Maurice. “Rainbow Across My Electorate.” New Zealand Parliament. Lambton
Quay, Wellington17 April 2013. Speech.