The ACL's Jim Wallace spoke at the Senate Inquiry into marriage in Melbourne today. Please find below a copy of Mr Wallace's address.

Mr Chairman, Senators

Thank you for the opportunity to present our arguments as the ACL in support of the definition of marriage. I want to discuss truth.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, they are different. This is a biological truth. It is simply incongruous that homosexuality and heterosexuality be treated as equal, because they are so clearly different.

This must cause us to ask what is then meant by “Marriage Equality” – it begs the question, equal in what? Because AME itself says that a critical condition applies to the principles of equality and non discrimination. They cannot apply to things which are inherently unequal or incompatible.

Is it then that the people be treated equally? Then I would agree and clearly governments do because there is no discrimination against homosexual people in entitlement, even Justice Kirby could identify none in Sydney yesterday.

We may be able to claim as we remember our recent apologies to the Stolen Generation and the Forgotten Generation that our intent, even if wrongly conceived, was nonetheless to serve the best interests of the children. In this case there is no such redeeming moral imperative.

This campaign is selfishly focused on the demands of adults who have already run roughshod over the rights of children by causing such nonsense as legislation allowing even a single man to be able to get a child through surrogacy.

There is of course also no doubt that if you permit this redefinition of marriage you cannot possibly deny calls for polygamy and polyamory, demands already been made. If marriage is only about love, then who is government to determine who or indeed how many people love.

But this campaign has also as its object to limit freedom of religion and conscience, despite claims to promise to preserve it in one of the bills.

The Committee must acknowledge the lack of integrity in promises to protect freedom of religion here, in those two bills, while the same activists are all the time demanding that protections for the church and people of faith be removed in the concurrent review of anti-discrimination legislation.

Also in the interest of truth I request the Committee to make a statement on its degree of confidence in the fact that the submissions received represent individual Australian opinion and have not been falsified.

In August last year, when MP’s were required to report back to Parliament on their consultation with their electorates on this issue, the scale of falsification of these submissions was extreme. As just one example, Malcolm Turnbull announced that of 4,000 emails received claiming to be from his electorate 1,700 proved not to be.

This campaign has been full of mischief, from the misrepresentation of fact, to the demonisation of alternate views and falsification of electoral support.

I believe this Committee has a responsibility to:

• Re-establish the truth of the claims of fact and popular support that have so mislead the public perception of this issue.

• To not create vulnerabilities for the church and people of faith and their freedom of religion and conscience, and

• Meet the parliament's responsibility to the children of Australia to protect the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood which marriage enshrines, and are so increasingly essential.

Please read the ACL's blog moderation policy before submitting a comment.