­­MEDIA RELEASE



4 July 2015



Penny Wong seeks to shut down debate by dismissing as "offensive" discussion about the consequences of redefining marriage.



Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said it was not "illogical and offensive" to point out that so called "marriage equality" should logically apply to other forms of love.



"If Senator Wong thinks it is offensive and illogical to discuss poly relationships in the context of the marriage debate, she should tell that to the UK Greens Leader Natalie Bennett.



Asked by the UK polyamorous community if they too could have 'marriage equality’, the Australian-born Ms Bennett said she was willing to consider this.



Since last week's US Supreme Court decision, a Montana trio has applied for a marriage license.



They would be within their rights to if love is love, highlighted Chief Justice John Roberts who raised this very point In his US Supreme Court dissenting judgement1.



Here in Australia, there are those calling for legal recognition of their polyamorous relationships.



"Instead of trying to shut down debate by claiming offence, proponents of changing the definition of marriage should allow free debate about where 'marriage equality' logic leads," Mr Shelton said.



"Based on the 'love is love' logic of those seeking to redefine marriage, there is no reason to deny other loving relationships legal marriage."



______



1 “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?” - Chief Justice John Roberts



ends