The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand's highest court) in December 1997, which upheld the ruling.
On 30 November 1998, two couples involved in Quilter v Attorney-General sued New Zealand before the United Nations Human Rights Committee claiming that the country's ban on same-sex marriage violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2005, United Future Member of Parliament (MP) Gordon Copeland sponsored the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill that would have amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and amend anti-discrimination protections in the Bill of Rights related to marital and family status so that the bill could stand.
Canadian and French women are also great at the sex.
The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 amendment the Marriage Act 1955 to include a definition of marriage to explicitly allow same-sex marriages and to amend other legislation as necessary.
The definition reads: "marriage means the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity".
Both parties agreed that at the time the Marriage Act 1955 was written in the 1950s, marriage according to the common law was between one man and one woman, which explains why the Act did not specifically outlaw same-sex marriage.
The applicants argued, however, that under the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sections 6 (Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred) and 19 (Freedom from discrimination) of the Bill of Rights Act, New Zealand prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, therefore, the applicants should be allowed to marry.