Media Release
For release: June 27, 2011
The Gillard Government should not bow to the Greens’ stated priority for the Marriage Act to be changed before the next Federal election, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
“There’s still a long way to go in this debate,” ACL Chief of Staff Lyle Shelton said today in response to Greens’ claims that same-sex marriage was “unstoppable”.
“At last year’s Federal election Australians voted for two major parties promising to retain marriage between one man and one woman.
“If Labor’s national conference in December votes to change the party’s platform to redefine marriage, it would be a breach of faith with the electorate if the Government allowed a change to the Marriage Act without first taking such a proposal to an election.
“Labor’s election commitment, reinforced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s statements that her Government would not change the Marriage Act, means there should be no change at least in the life of this Parliament.
“It would be ironic in the extreme if the party in the Parliament which achieved the least number of votes at the election caused the government to break its election commitment on marriage,” Mr Shelton said.
Mr Shelton said it was wrong of the Greens to compare the vote in the New York Senate to the Australian situation. In New York, unlike Australia, same-sex couples did not have equality under the law.
This was achieved in Australia in 2008 with amendment of 84 laws giving same-sex couples identical rights as de-facto heterosexual couples.
“Just because same-sex couples in Australia already have legal equality does not mean that marriage should be redefined,” Mr Shelton said.
ACL couriered 13 tonnes of non-party partisan voter information to 5000 churches last year, which among a wide range of issues of Christian concern, included Labor and the Coalition’s commitments on marriage.
“There is a clear expectation in the constituency that both major parties will honour their commitments,” Mr Shelton said.
“Proponents for same-sex marriage argue that the majority of Australians’ support it. But this is inaccurate; the latest poll done by Essential Media in March showed 49 per cent of people supported same-sex marriage, down from 53 per cent in November last year.”
In a video interview two weeks before the 2010 election with ACL’s Managing Director Jim Wallace, Ms Gillard said:
“The Marriage Act will stay unchanged, so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act as between a man and a woman, and we have also said that the Labor Party policy is we do not want to see the development of ceremonies that mimic marriage ceremonies. And so that’s the party policy, and as Prime Minister, as the leader of the parliamentary Labor Party that’s obviously my policy, and that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected.”
The Greens didn’t receive the least amount of votes at the last election, in fact they had a record vote ! Lots of other parties received less votes – the Socialist Alliance, Family First, the Australian Sex Party, and many others. New York had an amendment to their legislation that means that religious groups cannot be found guilty of discrimination for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Yet those couples can still legally marry, either by a celebrant or in a courthouse, and enjoy a married life. I don’t see why this can’t work in Australia. For example, the Catholic Church could still teach their flock what constitutes a Catholic marriage, and only marry those who fit their criteria. Yet under Australian law, same-sex couples could also marry, legally, in civil ceremonies. So it wouldn’t impact religious groups, and wouldn’t adversely impact same-sex couples. As for the 84 laws giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples – that’s nice, but straight couples can then choose to marry if they want. Same-sex couples should also have that choice.
@Mike – it might be the case that the New York law has an ‘exemption’ for churches from having to marry same-sex couples, but what of an individual’s right, including those who conduct businesses, to conscientiously object to participating in such marriages? For example, Christian photographers, marriage celebrants, public marriage registrars and florists have all been targeted for wishing not to participate in same sex marriage. And there is little doubt that the said exemption will likely be whittled away, challenged in the courts etc. as is so often the case with exemptions in law. Same-sex marriage threatens an individual’s right to hold, propagate and live out a conscientiously-held view on marriage that differs from the new state-mandated meaning.
I find the assertion of ACL that same-sex couples enjoy equality under the law ill-founded. If one member of a couple dies, their partner cannot act as next-of-kin in arranging for the funeral. There are no automatic inheritance rights. It is complex to ensure that a partner is recognised in the distribution of superannuation and life insurance. This is not equality under the law.
The Howard government, probably under lobbying pressure from yourselves, changed inclusive language in the Marriage Act to exclusive language. I, for one, would support a reversion of the Marriage Act to inclusive language so that same sex couples can marry under exactly the same laws a straight couples.
Marriage is not about procreation and child-rearing. It is about a binding and exclusive commitment of adults to each other. Straight couples should not have a monopoly on this.
@John – even Australian Marriage Equality says that homosexual couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples; “since 85 federal laws were amended to recognise same-sex de facto partners in 2008, the Marriage Act is the only remaining federal law which still discriminates”. http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/twelve-reasons-for-marriage-equality/
I’ll also point out that the Marriage Act continues to discriminate against minors who wish to marry, against people who wish to marry multiple people, and against those who wish to marry family members.
On this day, let’s not forget that the Australia I was born in *is* about equality and a fair go.
Nice to see you didn’t quote that only 40% were against it.
Spin doctors much?
@Rhys – 40% is a quite a large ‘minority’. There is little statistical difference in opinion for and against same-sex marriage in this poll, as opposed to other polling. The framing of the questions no doubt has something to do with this.
Marriage isn’t just about a legal status giving privileges to a sexual partner. It is a lifelong covenant and foundation for raising strong, secure children who know where and from whom they have come from. Do a poll on any group of people and ask if they would like to be raised in an environment where both their biological parents were committed to each other in a faithful relationship and you will get close to 100% I’m sure. There is far too much fatherlessness in our society. If any couple wants to get married they should be intending to have a lifelong monogamous relationship with the capacity to have children as an option. Same sex couples cannot produce this environment and statistically are more interested in multiple sexual partners. Marriage is a Judeo – Christian heritage that is reflected in every other culture in the world… as between a man and a woman. The sheer arrogance to try and change this institution to include something that mimics marriage and has no chance of producing the same results is an exercise in futility.
@John Clapton. ‘Marriage is not about procreation and child-rearing. It is about a binding and exclusive commitment of adults to each other.’
My question would be, Who says? If you have rejected the Judeo-Christian view of marriage, which includes, but is not limited to procreation and child-rearing, then why do you get to keep the part that says it is about a binding and exclusive commitment of adults to each other. Others would argue, some gay activists included, that that concept is also outdated and old-fashioned.
Why do you just get to keep the parts that suit you? Its like ordering a chocolate cake but asking them to leave out the chocolate…
Bring on the election and let the people decide. New York’s outcome was the result of backroom deals and coercion. Not much to be “proud” of there. Wonder what yet another lie will do for Julia’s plumetting popularity?
In response to ‘Mike” (27 June) It seems to me that the homosexual lobbyists have a pretty strong track record of their own making which points to progressive and assertive promotion of anything which has the slightest ‘whiff’ of running counter to their particular take on “discrimination”. What’s the next step after redefining the “Marriage Act” – legal action against a Christian priest, Muslim Imam or the like for refusing to ‘marry’ two men or two women ? My guess is .. watch this space.
You will see who are for and against it at the next election… once environment protection policy to protect Gods creation for us and our FUTURE has been established by the Greens in legislation in the senated. They will have no further value to us and so become rapidly obselete and go the way of the Democrats… Brown knows or senses this deep in his bones, so we will see the Greens go all out now for their time is short…
They are the party for the unhealthy minority who try to force whats left of healthy society to recognise and live the unhealthy lives that they do.
So they may feel supported and we can all go to early graves together.
No one on earth will ever or should ever be able to convince me or children that unatural sex can be good for your health, its as simple as that.
Wake up Australia! All the rest of this crap about gay marriage is blah blah to distract from the TRUTH!!! as usual.
The same blah, blah they are using to convice us that its ok to trash & disrespect the planet God created for us and our well being.
Their desire to marry is mainly to be given the legal right to adopt or create children and raise them in unhealthy gay lifestyles and so increase their numbers in society. If anyone cannot visualise the unhealthy future of this for society is blind, it is rampant selfishness and short term thinking out of control.
But indeed John Clapton you are wrong marriage was indeed originally created for the very purpose of procreation and child rearing… anything other than this is nothing but corruption of the original act in law: the scriptures, the very same thing that our laws are actually sourced, grounded and founded upon. Which is why Kirby, loves to call it “that book” in derogative terms as he knows and understands this VERY WELL and by experience whether he like this or not.
There are very practical and multifacited reasons why homosexual intercourse cannot be given weight & power in society.
Healthy society must see it and call it for what it actually is, that is homosexual intercourse… As it is very destructive to the body and cannot create nor contribute anything positive or productive to society on its own merits that will place another health burden on the budget like drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
Mike, Same-sex couples should not have the choice to marry because ‘that does not compute!’ Look up the definition of the word ‘marriage’. Are we to change the actual definition of the word?!! Why don’t you coin your own word for gay unions. The following shows what America thinks. Come on Aussies, stand up for what marriage really is.
“Same-Sex Spin: What Americans Really Believe about Marriage
by Chuck Colson
The gap is widening, we’re told. The number of Americans in favor of same-sex “marriage” is growing. Sooner or later, so-called same-sex “marriage” will be the law of the land. There’s no stopping it.
But not so fast. On June 16, the Alliance Defense Fund and Public Opinion Strategies released the results of a new scientific survey that calls all that into question.
The survey “was part of a comprehensive examination of American attitudes toward marriage,” which included both polling and focus groups for added accuracy.
The results? A full sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that “marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.” Fifty-three percent “strongly agreed.”
This is consistent with polling going back to 1998, when Alaska and Hawaii were the first two states to enact marriage amendments. Since then there have been thirty-one state referenda defining marriage as one man and one woman. Over sixty-three million Americans have voted, with nearly forty million or sixty-three percent voting for traditional marriage.
Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel Brian Raum (pronounced RAHM’) noted, “Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” and that we “strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization.”
What about all we’ve heard from the mainstream media about more and more Americans supporting same-sex “marriage”? The survey along with victories in courts, says Raum, “shows [that] the opposition has created an illusion of momentum, but not a real base of support or track record.”
The idea that Americans are losing their faith in marriage between one man and one woman is little more than public relations spin on a hollow claim.
And yet, the state of New York, egged on by Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just foisted same-sex “marriage” on the Empire State. Said State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, “What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.”
Senator Kruger is right about one thing: redefining marriage and family is precisely what the same-sex “marriage” debate is all about. But as to his claim that it’s “a good thing,” he’s dead wrong.
As the Manhattan Declaration affirms, “Marriage [between one man and one woman]… is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all human institutions have their foundation.” It goes on to say, “Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.”
If same-sex “marriage” advocates are successful in spite of their meager support, make no mistake, those pathologies will only grow.
Three cheers for Alliance Defense Fund for bringing the truth to light. Americans favor traditional marriage by nearly two to one. Raise your voices, folks. Same-sex “marriage” isn’t inevitable at all.
This article published on June 30, 2011.”
This is worrying that people on a Christian forum are supporting Same sex marriage.The bible says marriage is between an man and woman and anything else is unnatural. I think we need another name for same sex union. Part of the marriage ceremony is for legal recognition.I don’t have a problem with that but to want a sanctified union is a different thing altogether. The bible says this is for a man and woman. Maybe the homosexual lobby should get thinking and come up with their own ideas.
Every time I hear the baseless assertion that “the majority of Australians support gay marriage” I wonder whether the radical Greens think they will make it so if they just say this mantra publicly often enough.
I have no trouble believing that the majority of Australians support the 84 amendments that mean that people’s personal rights and protections are taken care of regardless of sexual orientation. So a question phrased poorly (or cleverly) could make a poll result seem as if respondents support something they do not.
Either way, win the battle and successfully get gay unions called “marriage”, but they will still never actually BE marriage, so it will be a hollow victory.
Why not call them some other name? Why the incredible passionate desperate bullying of the populace over this? People will soon grow battle-weary and not care any more, and gay activism will lose the fairminded non-gay support base it currently enjoys. Then maybe we can spend a proportionate amount of time and focus on some other issues that actually affect most of the population.