Letter to 153 CEOs and Directors: On your support for same-sex ‘marriage’

WestpacNOTE: In response to newspaper ads placed by Australian Marriage Equality this weekend where 153 companies declare their support for “marriage equality” - see www.corpsupport.org.au -  the president of the Australian Marriage Forum, Dr David van Gend, has written this week to all 153 CEOs and company Boards. 

Dear CEO/Director,

I note your business logo on recent newspaper ads supporting so-called “Marriage Equality”.

I now invite you to put your logo, and equivalent financial support, to a newspaper ad entitled:

MARRIAGE EQUALITY?
FOR EVERY CHILD, THE EQUAL RIGHT TO BOTH A MUM & A DAD

Marriage gives every child a mother and a father; same-sex marriage makes it impossible for a child to have both a mother and a father. That is the injustice of same-sex marriage.
Why are you supporting an injustice against the child?

By your position in favour of homosexual ‘marriage’, your company is denying future children their primal relationship with either their mum or their dad.

Your Directors are supporting the institution of motherless and fatherless families as an ideal in law – not brought about by tragic circumstance, but by deliberate Act of Parliament.

Why would a family-friendly company tell its customers that a mother just doesn’t matter to a child: any bloke and his boyfriend will be as good?

And in the face of all evidence showing the adverse consequences for young men raised without a father, why are you promoting fatherless households through instituting lesbian ‘marriage’, lesbian adoption and lesbian IVF?

MARRIAGE AS A COMPOUND RIGHT – “TO MARRY AND TO FOUND A FAMILY”

You cannot, after all, grant marriage rights without granting adoption rights and assisted-reproduction rights. This is the heart of opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’: that it means same-sex parenting, and that means children created within such a ‘marriage’ are forced to miss out on either their mother or their father. Just consider two legal facts:

  • Marriage is a compound right in law: Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family”. Therefore ‘gay marriage’ gives a same-sex couple the right to an exclusive relationship, but also the right to establish a family by adoption or surrogacy / IVF.
  • Some states in Australia prohibit adoption and surrogacy by same-sex couples (and by single people) because it is not considered to be in the best interests of the child. However, a federal law for same-sex ‘marriage’, with its inherent right to found a family, means state prohibitions must be repealed. Therefore a law for gay ‘marriage’ means formal, institutional approval is given to adoption, surrogacy and IVF by gay couples on an equal footing with married man-woman couples; gay ‘marriage’ means silencing longstanding legitimate concerns about gay parenting and the best interests of the child.

CLINICAL FACTS – SAME SEX PARENTING IS NOT BEST FOR CHILDREN

I do not doubt the good will of your Directors: the typical kind-hearted reaction to this debate is to say, “Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody – why not let them be happy and get married?”  But it does hurt somebody.

Heather Barwick, who was raised by a loving lesbian couple, recently published an essay entitled, “Dear gay community: your children are hurting”.(i) She says,

Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting. Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

Other adults raised in same-sex households are saying the same. (ii)Here on talk back radio I heard from ‘Amy’ who was raised by lesbian couple and who said, all her childhood, “I desperately wanted a daddy”(iii). But your company appears pleased to support the institution of fatherless marriage and daddy-less homes as an ideal in law, and too bad about the needs of little girls like Amy.

Also on ABC talkback radio I heard from ‘Joe’, a family law barrister of forty years living in a gay relationship for twenty years who told me: “As a gay man in a single-sex relationship for 22 years, I find the concept of bringing children into this relationship selfish... You bring children into a relationship where they have the best possible opportunity of being nurtured… by a mother and a father.”(iv)

Your Directors might also have bought the spin that “social science shows kids do just as well with same-sex parenting; all you need is love”. Such a soundbite is effective, but sadly not defensible. Again, your Directors are probably people who put weight on facts, not spin, so let them consider these facts:

  • The most recent, and largest, peer-reviewed study (Sullins 2015)(v) finds that children raised in same-sex households have four times the rate of significant emotional problems compared to children raised by their own biological parents. While that largest and most recent study stands, your company stands guilty of promoting a family structure that has been found to be detrimental to children.
  • There are no statistically significant controlled studies that investigate the effects on children of being raised by two homosexual men. None. It is not possible to make claims about “no ill effects” when the required studies have not been done. To support gay marriage and parenting in the absence of any such studies means you are simply flying blind and supporting a prolonged psychological experiment on children.
  • There are only eight studies in this field that meet the gold-standard criteria of random sample selection and statistically adequate sample size; of those four find no difference for children in same-sex households and four find detrimental effects for such children. Further the four that find no difference are deeply compromised by subsequent findings of corruption in their data base. For more detail, see a recent submission to the US Supreme Court, which concludes:

The longer social scientists study the question, the more evidence of harm is found, and the fact that children with same-sex parents suffer significant harm in that condition, compared to children with opposite-sex parents, particularly among same-sex parents who identify as married, has been established beyond reasonable doubt.(vi)

  • The other studies often quoted by the gay lobby DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS of random sample selection (i.e. the sample is biased by self-selection) or sufficient size to allow statistically valid generalisations like “there is no harm”. They are essentially anecdotal and rhetorical in value, but are no basis for public policy.

AN UNAVOIDABLE CHOICE

As the leading Australian ethicist and lawyer, Professor Margaret Somerville put is: “Same-sex marriage forces us to choose between giving priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims”.(vii)

It is a choice – and I cannot believe that your Directors have made the conscious choice that a child’s birth-right be abolished in law.

I am confident that each of your directors would have the capacity, searching their own heart, to reflect on the child’s point of view. After all, a child has the birth-right to look up and see the only two faces on earth that reflect her own: the woman and the man who together gave her existence. A little girl should not have to look up and see two “married men” as her parents. Neither man can be a mother to her; they cannot guide her as a mother would when she is growing from girl to woman, nor model for her the complex relationship of husband and wife. Likewise, any boy needs his father’s companionship and example to help him become a man; no matter how competent and caring a lesbian partner may be, she cannot be a dad to a little boy.

You will find the community is with you if you defend a child’s right, where possible, to be raised by both their mother and their father. After all, even if you accept the spurious finding by Textor in June 2014 of 72% support for ‘marriage equality’ (which is inconsistent with Essential media findings in the 55-59% range in recent years) there is the same finding of 73% public support for a contradictory proposition in a Sexton survey from 2011:

Where possible, as a society we should try to ensure that children are raised by their natural mother and father, and promote this.

Something has to give: these two propositions are mutually exclusive. If 73% of Australians think children have the right to be raised by their mother and father then the same 72% can’t give two men the right to marry and raise motherless children.

We ask you to give us your equal support for the child-centred model of marriage, as you have given to AME for the adult-centred model of marriage. Or is the deciding factor for your company, heaven forbid, that gay adults spend money but babies do not? Surely you are not prepared to sell a baby’s birth-right for a fistful of pink dollars?

May I respectfully ask that your Directors reconsider their public advocacy for so-called ‘marriage equality’, which imposes profound inequality on those children of gay ‘marriage’ who will be deprived of either their mother or their father.

Thank you for your sincere consideration of this momentous matter, and feel free to contact me.

Yours faithfully,
Dr David van Gend
President, Australian Marriage Forum

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(i)Heather Barwick essay at http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/
(ii)Mainwaring and others at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14663/ and http://australianmarriage.org/quartet-of-truth-adult-kids-of-gay-parents-speak-out/ and http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/
(iii)Amy interview at https://youtu.be/43P9Xd2t9Ug
(iv)Joe interview at https://youtu.be/EI-73uAoipk
(v)Sullins article at http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?id=21&aid=8172
(vi)Supreme Court USA submission on clinical studies at http://www.familywatchinternational.org/fwi/documents/Amicus_Brief_and_Appendix_2015.pdf?
(vii)Somerville article at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/its-all-about-the-children-not-selfish-adults/story-e6frg6zo-1226099613917

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

61 Responses

  1. This looks like it was written by a 12 year old. I am 50. I want to marry my partner. I do not want children. Equal marriage has nothing to do with children. Australia and the Western world sees right through this argument.

    • admin

      D. Halliwell, you and your partner already have full “relationship equality” under Australian law, identical in rights and privileges with the most conventional married couple. You can’t have “marriage” equality, because you do not want the unique male-female relationship that fits nature’s job-description for ‘marriage’: you want a non-marriage same-sex relationship, and good luck to you. So why do you want to usurp the meaning of ‘marriage’ for what is, in your own intention, an entirely sterile relationship?

      Keep to your type of relationship, which has nothing – as you put it – to do with creating a family, and leave the ‘breeders’ (as gay people call us) to get on with that great life-task.

    • did it hit a soft spot?…gay marriage is a shame to society…thats my opinion

  2. Thank you for putting this letter in words we,the average citizen, [I think] would have difficulty expressing the thoughts you have put forward.

    Thank You , in total agreement

    Annette Howard

    • admin

      Thanks Annette – really good of you to take the time to encourage like that. Onwards! This thing is not lost.

  3. Thank you Dr David,
    At last a real man with real guts.
    I share the same views that you share and of late have been very frustrated. I wrote to my local member, below is her response. Please draft a suitable response to this person as I am tempted to spell it out for her. This person is supposed to be our voice – what a disgrace.
    Kind regards
    Tyrone Crook

    She writes:
    Thank you for your email – I have been receiving similar emails about this Bill. I know there are strong views on this issue and I have listened to many arguments – both in support and against. The current Bill (Australian Marriage Act 1961 ) has been amended at various times since its introduction in 1961. In 2004 it was amended by the then PM to define marriage as being the union between a man and a woman – before 2004 there was no definition of marriage. These proposed changes to the Bill look to define marriage as between two people. The changes also ensure that no church – or an authorised celebrant, or a minister of religion, will be obliged to solemnise any marriage or to conduct services. The proposed changes do not define family and there is no legislation that does that….the basis for a family is to provide responsible care and as you know we already have many different family structures. It is, and always will be, important that we provide appropriate support to all families with a focus on love and safety. Our anti-discrimination laws currently in place aim to ensure that no person can be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their sexuality….this does not mean there has to be agreement. I support marriage equality between two people.

    • admin

      Tyrone, thanks – and your MP is mistaken: the definition of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into to for life” was widely in use in various family law statutes. It was simply lifted from those statutes and formalised in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 when a gay couple who had ‘married’ in Canada were trying to force a change in marriage through the courts.

      Why don’t you ask your MP if she supports the “equal right” of a child to have, where possible, BOTH a mother and a father? Does she oppose “discrimination” against a class of children who will, by Act of Parliament, be forced to miss out on the primal relationship with either their mother or father under laws for ‘gay marriage’?

      • Dear Tyrone and AMF,
        I wrote to my local member and received that very same reply from Senator Moore. So I wrote back:

        Dear Senator Moore,
        Thank you for your response to my email.
        You say “before 2004 there was no definition of marriage”. Whilst that may be so in relation to the Australian Marriage Act itself, there WAS an unquestioned, ancient definition – the very definition spelled out for the sake of clarity by the then Prime Minister John Howard. I don’t believe that changing the definition of a word necessarily aids a culture as it grows and develops.
        Since the word “marriage” does continue to describe a particular relationship still in existence today, I would suggest that the more appropriate solution to the current debate is to coin a new term to define the gay/lesbian relationship. I, as you, believe in freedom of choice for people who want to live together as homosexual partners – absolutely. I do not think, however, that labelling that relationship “marriage” ought to be the focus of this so called “marriage equality”. A different word altogether should be used to refer to a homosexual relationship. Surely, using the same word to describe two different and distinct relationships does not foster clarity, nor a true sense of diversity in our society.
        Thank you again for your time in hearing my thoughts.
        Kindly,
        Shannon Bestmann

        This does not speak of the birthright of children/etc. I wrote about that in my first email and Senator Moore completely disregarded my thoughts regarding what is right and the best for children. Very sad, to say the least.

        Thank you so much for your courage, Dr van Gend and all of you who are involved in bringing the voice of sense, truth and love to the fight to preserve marriage and family.

  4. I couldn’t agree more with what you have written and I and my HUSBAND will definity be boycoting any of the companies that support same sex marriage. Keep up the good work

  5. The executive CEOs authorising the funds for their advertisements, may be homosexuals, whose opinion is fixed. I look forward to their support for the child.

  6. Excellent, excellent, excellent. Nothing more to be said.

  7. Pray for traditional marriage.

  8. Thank you David for being more of a leader than all of these CEO’s put together. Your letter is excellent and clear, and it pray that each CEO and all others that read it will realise how much is at stake if marriage is changed, and how foolish they are getting involved in something that does not bode well for the future of our society and country. God bless you, and your family!

  9. Thank you Dr. David.

    In our church we have an ongoing prayer to put an end to same sex marriages. We started about 2 years ago and still pray to put an end to this adulteration of the definition of marriage.

    I feel sorry for the ignorance and confusion this local member shows in the way she defines marriage. The definition of marriage as it has been for the last 2000 years is the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others! final!

    She does not seem to understand that marriage and family are one and the same thing. There is no way you can be married and proclaim you do not belong to a family. Even a child knows he/she belongs to a family.

    We have so many “so called” learned people today. But where has common sense gone?

    Anne van Tilburg

  10. Thank you Dr. David. If those CEOs cannot understand the arguments you have shared with them, they are not fit to be in their positions. They are just SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH with no thought of the childrens’ rights ? This is a sure case of anti-discrimination of our children.

  11. Thank you……..this was really well put together and is absolutely correct. This is the most selfish bill and the pro arguments ALWAYS totally ignor the rights of children

  12. I see my children everyday with their mother’s love reflected with mine as the natural father and understand that traditional values has proven evidence of providing the best foundation for the next generation of Australians in a sound environment. I assist other organisations with support such as Legacy where I am able that are struggling in life due to the loss of a mum or dad but know that whatever I provide may help however can never replace the loss of a mum or dad. I lament that society problems will impact on my children and in turn their children should they have to deal with complex issues of other children in same sex marriage parenting households.

  13. we need some decent honest politicians. Perhaps you could go there as well. Great work

  14. It is hard to believe that so many CEO’s, Managers, etc., of businesses can presume to speak on behalf of all their employees, without taking a census, to determine who does and who does not support Marriage Equality. These people are speaking on their own behalf and have no right to include their employees in a general opinion.
    Can they truly speak for the WHOLE workforce in their employ? Did they consult their employees asking for their opinion?
    However it is good to have the list of companies (The Weekend Australian Magazine June, 13/14, 2015) so we know whom to boycott.

    A referendum is the only legal way the constitution can be changed and one must be held before any decision is made.

    So many words have been changed over the years to mean something completely different: gay (joyful, happy); queer (odd, peculiar); queen (ruler of the realm); fairy (a mythical creature children love). But never can MARRIAGE be changed to mean anything else. I believe there is a silent majority who believe that TRUE marriage can only be between a male and a female.
    Deirdre Cox

  15. Excellently written David. There are 2 very significant issues that the homosexual lobby cannot address:-
    (1) how does not being “married” prevent them from loving each other? and
    (2) how will changing the definition of marriage benefit society?

    (Incidentally, does anyone know any banking institution that does NOT support homosexual “marriage”? i am now looking to change bank accounts and the big 4 all support SSM.)

    • Jan

      Another question – How is marriage even relevant to homosexual couples and lesbians when they have neither the intent nor the ability to do what married people do ie have a sexual union that can create a child.?

    • I also am looking for a bank that supports Marriage and does not support homosexual “marriage”. Have you found such a bank? AMF please admit me to your mailing list.

    • Looks like Suncorp was not on there

  16. Thanks David for doing what you have done – you have done for all of us opposed to this fad – people who have not given it a minute’s thought and just want to get on with the next fast moving thing or technology.

    It is sad that we even have to discuss this issue at all – it should also be clearly stated that over 90% of the world’s population do not support homosexual “marriage” – and lets call it for what it is – the word gay is a wonderful title for what in reality of mankind is seen as deviant and unnatural sexual activity – we have in the past been too kind and tolerant(and given them vast equal rights) in Australia – so much so that they now want the Marriage Act changed.

    My main concern is for future generations of youth in the class rooms being advised that this is now the accepted norm (and if people then object they will be seen to be discriminating) – imagine young minds being fed this propaganda at a young age – and imagine the psychological problems that will then abound

  17. D.Halliwell congratulations on your restraint. You refrained from calling Dr van Gend a bigot and even resisted the homophobe mantra. However your ‘written by a twelve year old’ comment was unfortunate as it maintains the status quo of the level of dialogue proposed by so many marriage equality advocates. Each of us has not only the right but the responsibility to engage in dialogue relative to the construct and maintenance of a healthy society. Believing in the maxim that the strength and health of a society can be gauged by how well it cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members, we should all be eager to have vigorous conversations around the notion of what constitutes childhood equality. How many of the 70+ % of adults supposedly in favour of homosexual marriage would support redefining the meaning of marriage if a caveat was attached that required their immediate estrangement from one of their parents? If marriage equality supporters, adults who have had their childhood, were not willing to forgo their relationship with one of their parents for the remainder of their lives, how could they justify inflicting this life impacting imposition on any child whilst advocating anti-discrimination? Last time I checked the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child stated it was a child’s right to be raised by it’s parents.
    In an increasingly frantic and ego driven society it is time for some reflection on who and what we are and where we are going. Can we vision the high tide mark where the anti-discrimination sea slaps against the shore of self awareness, self acceptance and taking responsibility. All children deserve that we get this right.

  18. My wife and I are offended by the suggestion that there is equality between the union of a man and a woman, and the proposal to define the union between two men or two women also as marriage. The union of a man and a woman has, in part, the sexual union of two bodies using specific natural biological organs. The inappropriate use of this union is called rape. The “union” of two men involves, in part, an unnatural activity which is defined in the dictionary as buggery. The biologically natural union of a man and a woman is procreation. This is not possible by either two men in a homosexual activity, or for two women in a lesbian union. David van Gend puts the case very clearly for proper recognition of the rights of children to have protection within marriage as currently defined, by being brought up by their biological mother and father wherever this is possible. The homosexual community have forced the change in the historical meaning of the word gay, and now want to change the meaning of the word marriage, the institution which has been clearly understood for millennia. There are too many issues in this debate which are offensive to us to do anything else than object in the strongest terms to the proposals going, yet again, before parliament. In legal courts this would be dealt with severely as vexatious legislation. David

  19. Well written. Keep up the good work.

  20. While I agree that a child should have the benefit of both male and female influence in their lives, I believe that marriage is a social construct and as such, can be changed and interpreted to support the general consensus of the society at the time. If we’re depending on the writings of the Bible… Sorry, but that book was written by Man. If a God didn’t want ‘same-sex’ people – why did he create people with this inclination? Do you think these people ‘chose’ to be that way? I think they’re being true to themselves, why else would they subject themselves to so much public scrutiny and discrimination and any other reaction they get from society.

    This argument seems to completely ignore that there are children ALREADY in this situation – regardless of their parents being permitted to marry or not. It also ignores that there are children growing up in families where heterosexual parents are separated, a parent passes away or the negative influences of a mother and father who are married but their relationship is volatile.

    There are many same-sex couples who can offer just as much love and support to children, if not more, than many existing male-female parents can. In fact, there are some heterosexual couples that shouldn’t be allowed to have children. That is an argument worth fighting! Not other people’s business about who they fall in love with and want to commit to. If anything, I think their want to seal their relationship with marriage upholds the sanctity of it, meanwhile… What is the divorce rate of male-female couples? There’s a lot of people not taking this marriage thing seriously already… nor thinking about their children!!! And that is selfish on their part.

    • Marion,
      I could comment on many of your points, but I’ll stick to just one of now. You implicitly assume that same-sex attracted people are born that way and/or cannot change: but that is simply not true: people can and do change their sexual orientation.

    • Jo

      Hi Marion,
      I too could comment on many of your points, but i just want to clarify for you (and probably many other people out there) that God didn’t create people with this ‘inclination’ to be gay. We were created however with the freedom to make our own choices, this includes the ‘freedom’ to sin and give in to evil temptations.
      Furthermore, if homosexual couples want to ‘seal’ their relationship – then call it something else, but it’s not marriage (for obvious reasons…).

  21. Thank you David. Many in the community agree with the solid data you have presented and will be glad you have taken it to the Directors of these companies who may have passed off their decision on flimsy grounds.

  22. Thank you David for your clear, concise facts on this contentious issue.
    I too have been labelled a bigot and homophobic after standing up against same sex marriage on social media.
    I believe strongly in the Bible, and wish to bring my children up following its commands. The idea of same sex marriage being not only legalised in Australia but actually redefining our understanding of marriage is a sad indictment on how far we have come as a nation. Previous generations showed great respect for the sanctity of marriage. For a few decades marriage was touted as “old fashioned” and “just a piece of paper”. Now it seems the pendulum has swung back to favour marriage, but unfortunately the issue of same sex marriage has been brought along with it.
    Thank you for informing us of the facts including the shaky foundation on which the same sex marriage supporters are building their case.
    I didn’t see the original newspaper ad. Is it possible for you to provide a list of the 153 companies that support this bill?
    Many thanks.

  23. Hi David,

    I support your letter in full and have written to my local MP and received the same response as Tyrone. I will write back with the explanation of the changes as per your suggestion, thank you for your response.

    The issue I have however is that I work for Optus, who was also on the list of companies that support Marriage Equality. I believe there are many people within Optus who share the view to uphold the current definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman. There are also many people who work for Westpac and all of the other companies, who have similarly written to their MP in support of keeping the definition unchanged. The decision from Optus to support Marriage Equality, was actually I believe made by a minority, and there are many Optus employees like myself who are not in support of it, and would like marriage kept to be defined between one man and one woman.

    By removing our support of these organisations as customers because Head of Corporations have made a decision that many in the company actually do not support, I am not sure that is wise.

    I believe I can have much more of an impact within the management of Optus by knowing these people personally, praying for them, befriending them, and then in that position, trying to persuade mass media marketing. I would still like people to buy from Optus because I personally know of many in the company who support the current definition of marriage. Optus also are responsible for supporting many organisations that Christians are in support of. By CEO’s agreeing to put their name on a mass media add about marriage, doesn’t necessarily represent the whole company, as I think Optus has great deals for customers, and I intend to continue working for Optus, even though top views on Marriage at the moment do not line up with my own.

    Wouldn’t it be more courageous on my part through good business decisions and work ethic, attempt to rise to a position of influence in a company, rather than say I’m leaving the company entirely because I don’t agree with the present popular view? As long as I can freely say my views and not be put out of a job because I have these views, which is how it is at the moment. My job rests on my productivity and my performance more so.

    I hope by writing this we can attempt to understand a bigger picture, and by these companies placing these ads, I don’t think it really did represent the views of the majority of those companies. Prayer is probably the most important thing. Lets fast and pray for these companies as well as write letters. Remember our fight isn’t against flesh and blood, but the principalities and powers (Eph 6).

    Thanks for your time, I’ll be continuing anything I can do to raise these issues in the right format with the Optus reps responsible for the ads, but it’s important to raise it respectfully, and even if it seems I don’t have immediate success, I know influence can start from one small word.

    Kind regards
    Kate

    • So why does a Telecommunication Company have any qualification or right to express an opinion on a subject that has nothing to do with Telecommunication? and how can the management express that opinion without the unanimous approval of their stakeholders ie staff and shareholders.

  24. That’s a great letter. Thank you for speaking up and sending it to each company. Keep up the good work:)

  25. Jan

    Congratulations on an excellent letter David . Keep up the good work you are doing in so clearly spelling out the fundamental issues which are at stake here. Your letter and clear argument will, I am sure, encourage so many more people to counter the arguments of their SSM proponent friends, family and colleagues.

  26. Yes, please, a link to the 153 CEO’s, where will I find it?
    Mrs Judith Bond

  27. The claim of equal love by homosexuals to justify their campaign to have their relationships called marriage is basically flawed. Parents have great love for their children and vice versa, and there is real love between siblings, but such love is fundamentally different in its expression to that between a man and a woman in marriage. While commitment may be absolute in all cases, the way that commitment is worked out is likewise different. I love my children dearly, but never can this be the same in all aspects as between my wife and myself simply because each brings different intrinsic attributes to the relationships, and has different responsibilities in the relationship.

    It is generally acknowledged that a woman’s point of view is needed in a wide range of situations. It cannot then be claimed that two men or two women in a relationship can provide the same inputs to the relationship or in raising children as a mother and father do. The differences are real and significant.

    In the bible it is recorded that David and Jonathon had a deep love for each other but also loved their wives. The difference in the relationships was that David and Jonathon’s relationship was a brotherhood which did not clash with or diminish in any way their relationships with their wives.

    Reality of love between individuals is thus no justification for calling any relationship except between a man and a woman, marriage, for there is no other the same or equal.

  28. I sent letters to my MP but didn’t even get a response I thought Sussan Ley’s office was better than that.But like other people i will be boycotting these company’s.I have been though a devoice many years ago and i was always told by the counsellors like at the family law court and others that they always look to what is BEST FOR THE CHILDREN and i agree with them.Nature tells us very plainly that 2 men or 2 woman in a sexual relationship is unnatural just the body parts themselves tell you they were meant for certain uses you can’t put a peg in a square whole has they say ,as we know it takes a man and a woman to make a child pretty simple you ask me ,so that tells me there is something very wrong with the way they are thinking[Very Sad] .But we are told by Jesus to Love people just as he loved me but that doesn’t mean that love approves of certain behaviours .Jesus is Lord of Australia not Business CEO’s or Homosexual and Lesbian groups…

  29. Excellent article David.

    I am a customer of some of the banks who have publically supported ‘SSM’. It is not practical for me to close my bank accounts however I would like to express my displeasure with the corporations who have taken out the adverts for ‘marriage equality’ and was wondering if you could send me a list of the 153 email addresses.

    Thanks

  30. Well constructed argument David. I think it is worth looking into the viability of opening a ‘bank’ that does not discriminate against children or family. Maybe try and buy “Family First” as a name for the bank. Maybe ‘WrestBack’, ‘Truly National’. “Aiding National Zeal “ANZ for short. Civil rights for Offspring and Marriage “COM Bank” for short. I’m sure a nation of brains could come up with good names.

    I am more than happy to be a north coast agent for free. That, I am not joking about …………….. this is serious.

    Ron Allen

  31. You have awesome knowledge of the rules and regulations to have done such a thorough response to the support being given by a few organisations. I feel that those pushing for this change want it more as a status as it will not add or take away any rights that they already have. I would be very hard pushed to find any reasonable argument against what you have written, in support of redifining “marriage’. The only other comment i would like to make, is that evil only succeeds when good people do not stand up to it! Thank you for being the voice for my family and myself and the millions who feel the same. By the way, havwe you got any re4sponse from Westpac or any of the other organistaions supporting this move?

  32. MJ

    Historically, one of the symptoms of cultural decay is the rise and condoning of homosexuality. We see it in Sodom and Gomorrah and we see it in the chronicles of other great empires as they decay and, of couse, we see it today. The problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was not just homosexuality; it was also open, public condoning of homosexuality. Guess what happened? God personally dealt with it. When our governments do nothing about it God will! 

  33. Brilliant! Thank you Dr David van Gend!

  34. We need more leaders to voice out in the community without fear to preserve marriage.
    Who will lead us?

  35. Ana

    Such a great article. Thank you, David.

    These stories from people who were raised by same-sex parents but in hindsight recognise the harm this has caused them, brings to light the FALLACY that legalising same-sex marriage “harms no one.”

    • Well said Ana and thank you Dr David van Gend for the great letter, lets ope that those 153 CEO’s will ponder on (MARRIAGE EQUALITY? FOR EVERY CHILD, THE EQUAL RIGHT TO BOTH A MUM & A DAD)

  36. The strangest part about all this is, that gay couples want the same name as a male and female marriage?
    1, this is totally obsurd as male and female relationships are different in every way and you don’t have to be Einstein to work that one out.
    2, a lot of people I talk to say that marriage is just some old religious tradition, then why do they want to get married?

    If same sex relationships can be the same, and the truth of it is they can’t! It’s like calling a Holden commodore a Ford falcon.

    And imagine when teenagers growing up with a Dad/Dad seeing there friends with a mum and dad as parents you know how difficult this age group can be. There is going to a lot of pissed off 16-19 year olds, let’s gets truthful here. its difficult enough coming from difficult circumstances like divorce, let alone through another abnormal circumstance forced upon our children. It’s like common sense has been thrown out in favour of Doogooderism

    if all these companies are in favour then why don’t why start thowing all there Money and profits towards this cause, they could spend millions of dollars on movies and TV shows, they won’t because the truth is that hardly anyone will watch or go and see the movies about this. When push comes to shove the silent majority won’t be bothered about it.

    keep the truth flowing!

  37. You do not have to cut off your nose to spite your face by completely switching banks. Because they decided not to be loyal to 100% of their customers in campaigning against what you hold dear – don’t be 100% loyal to them. Split your banking business and move a significant percentage of it away. Run two accounts. Use them to your advantage just as they are using your funds for non-legitimate, non-corporate purposes. Redefining marriage has nothing to do with being an employer of diversity. Will they now campaign for polygamy on behalf of their Muslim staff? The boards of these organisations should be ashamed they lack the integrity to tell their executives they have stepped over the line.

  38. Thank you Dr David for your diligent research and for expressing the thoughts of so many concerned citizens. I hope and pray that your words are well received and considered by the second corporate institutions.
    Regards,

    Daniel

  39. Excellent work. It astounds me why Corporates are lending their logos behind this one cause/ community group/ movement and not other equally as valid groups such as yours or Australian Christian Lobby for eg. http://www.acl.org.au/corporate-sponsorship/

    I also don’t understand why 1 minority group would receive so much more support than other minority groups or even faith groups. I don’t see these Corporates support church events? There’s even pressure in the marketing community to not say Christmas offer as not everyone celebrates Christmas…instead having a more PC word such as Happy Holidays which is very American. Why are we losing the Judeo-Christian values our country was once built on because some voices are louder and more demanding? Like Franklin Graham I would consider writing to my bank about switching all funds and lending because of this logo support piece alone – but looks like they have all banks have largely joined in. Come on people let’s fight for family values, christian faith and the sanctity of marriage as God intended it to be in the bible.

    Also their approach is clever to top and tail the support letter around diversity and equality in the workplace – which I don’t see a problem with, however I’m concerned that if I as a Christian disagree with this based on my faith I will be reprimanded at my work, or lose my freedom to express my Christian faith in my workplace. What I don’t understand here is by providing their logo they say they support gay marriage – the middle section which sits outside the workplace.

    In most large corporate companies there is a Diversity and Inclusion team – perhaps you should also write directly to them? PM me as I have some contact details here

    • When did we as a society decide together that discrimination is a “religious belief?” I don’t recall that nor do I find anything in the Bible where Jesus taught/commanded that.

      • Michael, discrimination can be based on anything from whim to religious belief. I discriminate strongly against capsicum because, for me, it has bad effects.

        Discrimination can be good or bad.

        It is good to discriminate against practices that are detrimental to society as a whole as can be demonstrated by objective tests and results. So we discriminate against theft, rape, murder, vandalism etc – and other things too; like practices are known to give worse physical or mental health outcomes, or family structures that are demonstrated to, on average, give worse results for children. And tin that regard, same-sex relationships are, on average, worse for adults children and society.

        Last time I read a Bible it was quite clear that we should discriminate:
        Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. – and clearly avoid or discriminate against the opposite.

        OK that was Paul. But Jesus himself clearly intends us to discriminate:
        “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees … they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” that is, to discriminate in what we believe, and that must include to discriminate against sin whatever it’s nature from a ‘simple’ convenient lie, to other sins which the Bible spells put as being an abomination to God.

  40. Because gay and lesbians cannot consummate a marriage, a redefinition of marriage would be required.
    How else could marriage be consummated other than by sexual intercourse? Couples who indulge in heavy petting
    cannot be said to be having sexual intercourse. Gay and Lesbian couples can already have the rights of married couples.
    This is an attempt by homosexuals to feel more normal, without considering the ramifications of their emotive driven
    social push.

    • Actually, it would appear that those promoting the immoral anti-gay agenda are the ones who want to feel more normal by trying to pass laws which normalize discrimination, exclusion and homophobia. Do we really need the special right to discriminate imposed on all the rest of us so an angry minority can feel warm and cozy about harming other families and their children?

  41. All the children being adopted were created by a “mom and dad.” Once again, instead of taking personal responsibility for heterosexuals who pop out kids and toss them aside like old dish rags, those promoting the immoral anti-gay agenda instead attack loving couples who want to marry. It’s not gay people who “accidentally” have children.

    • Michael,
      comparing the worst of irresponsible heterosexuals having children with a “loving (‘gay’) couple who want to marry” is irrelevant here. Both the straights and gays being compared are irresponsible: the heterosexuals for not taking responsibility for their sex life; and, the ‘gays’ for being irresponsible with their physical and mental health – especially if they have children in their care.

      Like the ‘gay’ community, you distort words and rewrite the dictionary with dizzying spin:
      The ‘gay’ lifestyle is well documented to have significantly higher risks of: disease; promiscuity; relationship breakdown; suicide and violence. The evidence is that people discriminate against ‘gays’ for those reasons – rather than the false case the poor outcomes for ‘gays’ is due to ‘discrimination and ‘homophobia’. No one is compelled to live a ‘gay’ lifestyle: people have a choice re how they live. Twin-studies prove that ‘gayness’ is not genetically mandated because if one identical twin is ‘gay’, it is most likely that the identical twin is NOT ‘gay’. In other words being ‘gay’ is not an immutable genetic attribute like skin colour.

      Further, claiming that your opponents are an angry minority “promoting the immoral anti-gay agenda” who are attacking ‘loving couples’ and seeking to ‘(harm) other families and their children’ is not only false but also misuse of words. Since when it is immoral to seek the best physical and mental health outcomes for couples, children in their caee, and for the community, and to minimise the harm done to families and children? And that applies to all ‘couples’ and families, ‘straight’ or ‘gay’. But then, wasn’t it Goebbels who said: ‘tell a lie often enough and people will believe it’.

  42. I have only just had your site drawn to my attention.

    Like some of your other correspondents, I have emailed my local MHR and twelve senators. I did this on 12th June and have only had a reply from my local MP who, amongst other things, said ‘equal rights for same-sex couples to marry will continue to have my full support’. (I have responded to her letter and am awaiting a reply.)

    The substance of my email was as follows:

    I understand that there are moves afoot to alter the definition of marriage in the present Marriage Act so that two people of the same sex can marry.

    I am writing urgently, therefore, to ask you to speak against and vote against any amendment to the current definition.

    My reasons are simple:

    1 I understand that a marriage between a woman and a man is not complete until it has been consummated by sexual intercourse and that any such unconsummated marriage could be declared null and void.

    2 It follows, as a matter of logic, that for a same-sex marriage to be complete, it must involve an act of sexual intercourse. For men, this can only mean anal intercourse. For women, I don’t know how any act of sexual intercourse can take place (but then, I’m only a man…)

    3 To equate sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex with sexual intercourse between a woman and a man is to equate the unnatural with the natural.

    4 To legalise such sexual intercourse through an act of parliament is to declare that the unnatural is on a par with the natural.

    I ask you: are you prepared to ‘put your hand up’ to the passing of such legislation?

  43. Your unrelenting appeals from all areas of your website and, in fact, all areas of your internet and social presence, begs us to ‘think of the child’. Well where are your thoughts of the children when it comes to actual, living children and young adults who are made every day to feel unworthy of love and acceptance because of the law. I’m a 17 year old girl from Western Australia, and I’m sick and tired of being made to feel as though I am unworthy of equal opportunities and social acceptance because I am same-sex attracted. It’s many years before I’ll consider starting a family, but the way I feel right now is that yes, that’s something I want. I want a child and I find it blindingly unfair that you have seen fit to prevent me from seeing the rights that other people my age receive freely simply because they are heterosexual.
    I don’t expect any of you straight, middle aged people to understand the anxiety of coming out to family, not knowing if you’d be accepted. To your conservative school, not knowing if you’d be bullied and abused. I also don’t expect you to understand the true depth of sorrow and unending demoralisation that I and many others feel as, day by day, our futures and the future of rights in this country are discussed uncaringly, bandied about in the time being by people that it will never affect or impact in any way, until some more ‘worthy’ topic takes the attention of our MPs (most likely the continued disregard of our environment and economy, don’t you agree?).
    I’m sick and tired of being told that I do not matter because I am part of a minority. I’m sick and tired of being told that my opinion does not matter because I am legally a child.
    The ‘issue’ of marriage equality should not be taking this much time to decide. There are pressing decisions to be made elsewhere, this conversation should be over and done with, and marriage equality should have been legalised long ago. This is a simple yes or no question: should people be treated equally?
    I just want all anti-equality supporters to think for a moment about who they are truly affecting with these comments. Even when marriage equality is recognised (as it will be- rest assured), the damage of your remarks will remain to hurt young people as they struggle against an already difficult journey.
    One final point – please, stop being so petty. Straight people are not unanimously referred to as ‘breeders’- this is an extremely offensive assumption to make. I noticed a comment earlier which made unnecessary mention of a woman and her ‘HUSBAND’ (this word was capitalised in an attempt at clarification and ‘superiority’) which only acted as a schoolyard taunt against the pro-equality community. I don’t understand why many of you rely on petty attacks to solidify your views. Maybe it’s because the ‘child’ you refer to as thinking of in your tagline is actually yourself?
    Thank you for your time. If you’d like to respond to this comment I’d be interested to hear any views you have.

    • admin

      Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts K. It’s important to understand that all relationships matter, but not all relationships can be, or should be Marriage. Right now, gay couples already have the same rights as heterosexual couples – redefining Marriage would not change that. It’s not the answer you’re looking for. And yes, our focus is on creating the absolute best-case scenario for children. Even the most loving and caring same-sex couple cannot replace the bond between mother and child, or father and child. The ALP acknowledges that there needs to be equal representation of women and men in parliament, they also need to acknowledge that this same equal representation is just as important in the life of a child. This is why we liken it to the tragedy that unfolded for the ‘Stolen Generation.’ Well meaning people removed infants from their biological parents, seeking to offer them a ‘better life.’ Despite their best efforts, they could not replicate what the child needed most – their biological parents. We cannot say it was a tragedy for these children, but would not be a tragedy for a child taken from their biological parent today, to be raised by a well meaning gay couple. Even though their mother may well consent, the child’s voice won’t be heard until it’s much too late. Petty attacks and bullying should not be a tactic from either side of this argument, rather a constructive and informed debate is necessary to decide the best possible outcome for you… and for future generations.

Leave a comment