It wasn't top-down, ram-down-your-throat tactics that inevitably create more resentment than positive change.
Rather, Wall and other gay rights advocates understood that acceptance was going to require a lot of changes of heart.
Today, in our liberal, secular democracy, the right for same-sex couples to marry is entrenched in law and overwhelmingly supported by the populace.
The dominant cultural position is that homosexuality is no longer taboo and, although less common than heterosexuality, no less natural.
The law protects us from discrimination and homophobia is seen as regressive.
However, groups of humans living together in societies are complex and far from homogeneous.
Belief systems are about as varied as the languages that are spoken all over the world. And sometimes - in fact, often - this means the beliefs of one group clash with the beliefs of another. It is inevitable.
We are seeing this play out in the media in regards to the Christian school Bethlehem College and its view that marriage is between a man and a woman.
There has been significant outrage on behalf of gays and lesbians like me. But, I am confused this viewpoint comes as a surprise to anyone.
It isn't a viewpoint I like, but I understand that despite the laws governing the secular institution of marriage now extending to same-sex couples, the Christian concept of marriage as connected to their spiritual belief system is a strictly one-bloke, one-lady situation.
That's why I'm proud of the work we did as the Free Speech Union (where I sit on the board) to protect their right to express this view.
Gordy Lockhart wrote about this situation in the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend last Saturday and while I share many of his sentiments, in my opinion, it seems very shortsighted.
I urge strong caution when it comes to encroaching on the rights of religious people and organisations.
Lockhart writes: ''Why would an organisation adopt a belief system with values that 'can feel personally hurtful'?''
While of course in some people's version of utopia we would all share the same beliefs and values, in our wonderfully messy reality of multicultural, religiously diverse societies, this is simply never going to be the case.
In a truly liberal and democratic society, we tolerate things that we don't like, don't agree with, and which might hurt our feelings, because history shows the alternative is the violent, authoritarian ways of the past where homogeneous beliefs were imposed by violence.
Our laws and policy should reflect equal rights and responsibilities and homosexual law reform and equal marriage rights show we have come a long way towards achieving this.
No one, religious or not, can prevent my partner and me from becoming wife and wife should we choose.
Nonetheless, to say that no one can hold a position that is different to anything in New Zealand law would be tyrannical and would stop all debate on any matters already legislated in their tracks.
We would never have been able to achieve homosexual law reform if this were the case.
At the Free Speech Union, we fight for the right to make your case. It's up to others to decide if you're right.
Some religious folk might say, "according to my religion your marriage is not valid and you are going to hell" and that might be upsetting to hear.
However, they could be equally hurt by me responding with one of my favourite quotes from Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Regardless of my own scepticism about the Christian God, and any of the others, it would be wrong of me to seek to encroach on the rights in law and policy of religious people who deeply hold beliefs I disagree with.
Likewise, it would be wrong of those religious people to seek to prevent me from speaking about my disagreement with their beliefs.
Opposition to homosexuality has been a part of Christianity for a very, very long time. We (the non-religious) don't get to cherry-pick the nice bits out of various religions and declare the ugly bits to be not actually part of it.
We must insist that everyone obeys the laws that govern us, but the application of particular religious beliefs and restrictions to the spiritual lives of individuals and congregations must be respected ... or at least tolerated.
What does this mean for the young gays and lesbians attending Bethlehem College?
Well, that depends. They live in a country with a government that is visibly supportive of gay rights and the laws of the land protect them from discrimination.
Their parents may have chosen to send them to Bethlehem College in part because they, too, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
If this is the case, the student will be exposed to religious beliefs at home and the school is simply reflecting that.
On the other hand, their parents might send them to the school because of its academic standards, but not agree with the school's stance on marriage.
In that case, they are likely to reflect their acceptance of same-sex couples in their own actions.
Being gay is still tough for many New Zealanders; we still face homophobia at times. However, we won the battle of public opinion through free speech.
How can we rob others of that now? The majority of the population understands we simply want to lust, love, and create family units just like everyone else.
We want to be whole parts of society and being part of a functioning, secular, democracy means tolerating the (lawful) ideas and beliefs of others that we consider bad or hurtful.
- Ani O'Brien is a political commentator and sits on the board of the Free Speech Union, a non-partisan organisation dedicated to protecting and expanding free speech.
