There will be another debate in the Senate next Thursday about changing the definition of marriage.

The libertarian Senator from NSW, David Leyonhjelm will give a second reading speech on his so called “freedom to marry” bill.

This will allow other Senators to give speeches for or against changing the definition of marriage. It is unlikely to come to a vote and with the May budget session of Parliament around the corner, short-term momentum is likely fizzle.

We of course need to be vigilant.

Senator Leyonhjelm’s agenda is to force the Liberal Party into allowing a conscience vote on marriage.

Perhaps his announcement today to bring his bill forward was coordinated with the Greens’ motion in the Senate yesterday which called on all Parliamentarians to be given a conscience vote on marriage.

Now this sounds nice and democratic, but why should a political party abandon its policy position on an issue which goes to the best interest of the child?

Neither side of politics generally allow a conscience vote unless the issue is life or death such as abortion or euthanasia.

Changing the definition of marriage in law means legislating a family structure which deliberately denies social justice to children.

Wherever possible, every child has the right to his or her mother and father.

The government should not pass laws which deny them this and it is entirely appropriate for a political party to have a policy which upholds this.

It’s been a fascinating week in the marriage debate with SBS censoring a pro-marriage ad  and the iconic gay fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana publicly supporting children’s’ rights to their mother and father, wherever possible.

We at ACL will keep you up to date on further developments.