Thursday, May 24th, 2012

Today’s debate on a Greens’ motion in the NSW Upper House to change the definition of marriage is a misuse of the parliament’s time, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

ACL’s NSW Director David Hutt said homosexual activists should be focussing their attention on the federal parliament because marriage is a Commonwealth issue, not a state issue.

“Because an overwhelming number of federal MPs, having consulted their electorates, have rejected changing the definition of marriage, activists are resorting to using the time of state parliaments to get publicity for their cause,” Mr Hutt said.

“We are very disappointed that Premier Barry O’Farrell has given his members a conscience vote on whether to support Labor’s new policy on marriage.

“Tony Abbott and the federal coalition are to be congratulated for their integrity on this issue. They promised to protect the definition of marriage during the election campaign and they have stuck by that promise,” he said.

During the 2011 state campaign, ACL asked the O’Farrell coalition how it would respond to a state-based push for same-sex marriage. At the time, they dismissed it as a federal issue. Responding to the Australian Christian Lobby’s 2011 election questionnaire, the coalition was very clear:

The NSW Liberals & Nationals have no plans to legislate regarding any changes to the current definition of marriage. Marriage is a Commonwealth matter under the Marriage Act 1961.

“Changing marriage means changing parenting and that means a child can be deliberately denied his or her mother or father. Such a radical change is not a matter of conscience, it is a matter of the rights of the child, something a government is bound to protect,” said Mr Hutt.

“The nonsense of changing the definition of marriage to accommodate so-called ‘marriage equality’ is highlighted by the growing public bewilderment of polyamorous people who are angry that the Greens will not recognise their love as equal,” he said.

ACL calls on members of the Legislative Council to reject the motion.