Photo from The Age

Photo from The Age


According to the 2011 Census, same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia. Children in same-sex couple families make up only one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1%).

But Senator Wong would have us redefine the relationship of ALL children to ALL parents - abolish "natural parents" in law and replace that with Big-Government-Defined "legal parents" - so that the one-in-a-thousand child of her lesbian partner can say she has a "normal" family.

"I find it sad that senior politicians in this country seem to want to tell my children and children of other same-sex couples that somehow they are not normal," Senator Wong told ABC radio on Monday.

No. The child is obviously normal, but the arrangement of adults in her household is not. That's not the child's fault and it's tough that adults have forced it on her - but adults do that sort of thing. We don't change laws as a form of make-believe, even to help gay couples feel OK about what they have done to their kids.

Margaret Somerville AM, Professor of Law and Medicine at McGill University in Canada, explains that same-sex 'marriage' "necessarily negates the rights of all children with respect to their biological origins and natural families, not just those born into same-sex marriages." 

Her article from The Australian explains what is at stake:

SAME-SEX marriage creates a clash between upholding the human rights of children with respect to their coming into being and the family structure in which they will be reared, and the claims of homosexual adults who wish to marry a same-sex partner.

It forces us to choose between giving priority to children's rights or to homosexual adults' claims.

Opposite sex marriage does not raise this conflict, because children's rights and adults' claims with respect to marriage are consistent. I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and support legalising civil partnerships. But, I also believe that marriage should remain defined as being between a man and a woman.

My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that symbolises and protects the inherently reproductive relationship that exists between a man and a woman and, thereby, establishes children's human rights regarding their biological origins and the family structure in which they are reared.

A central issue in the same-sex marriage debate is whether the institution of marriage is a purely cultural construct, as same-sex marriage advocates argue, and therefore open to redefinition as we see fit; or whether it is a cultural institution built around a central biological core, the inherently procreative relationship of a man and a woman. If it is the latter, as I believe, it cannot accommodate same-sex relationships and maintain its current functions.

Marriage is a compound right in both international and domestic law: it's the right to marry and to found a family. Giving the latter right to same-sex couples necessarily negates the rights of all children with respect to their biological origins and natural families, not just those born into same-sex marriages. The Canadian Civil Marriage Act 2005, which legalised same-sex marriage, demonstrates this in providing that in certain legislation the term "natural parent" is to be replaced by "legal parent". In short, the adoption exception -- that who is a child's parent is established by legal fiat, not biological connection -- becomes the norm for all children.

In the same vein, some Canadian provincial legislation replaces the words "mother" and "father" on a birth certificate with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". And an Ontario court has ruled that a child can have three legal parents: her biological mother and her lesbian partner, and her gay biological father who donated sperm.

It's true that some opposite-sex marriages do not or cannot result in children. But they do not negate the norms, values and symbolism established by opposite-sex marriage with respect to children's human rights in regard to their natural parents and families, as same-sex marriage necessarily does.

Moreover, the dangers of same-sex marriage to children's human rights are amplified by reprogenetic technoscience. Developments like IVF, cloning and surrogacy pose unprecedented challenges to maintaining respect for the transmission of human life and the resulting children, because they open up unprecedented modes of transmission. When the institution of marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, it establishes a social-sexual ecology of human reproduction and symbolises respect for the transmission of human life through sexual reproduction, as compared to asexual replication (cloning) or same-sex reproduction (for instance, the future possibility of making a sperm from one woman's stem cell and using it to fertilise another woman's ovum).

Recognising that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight: excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not related to those people's homosexual orientation, or to them as individuals, or to the worth of their relationship. Rather, the exclusion of their relationship is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative. Same-sex marriage is symptomatic of adult-centred reproductive decision making. But this decision-making should be child-centred.


Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

12 Responses

  1. sam

    Well written. Would Penny ever awaken from her stupor? Its too late but we must not give up.

  2. Don

    I have been a strong Labor supporter all my life and I am 63 years old. I live in the electorate of Eden Monaro in Bega.
    When Keven Rudd came out in support of gay marriage. The Labor party lost my support. A very good member Mike Kelly lost his seat by a very small margin. It only required about 100 Christians, Muslims Jews Buddhists seeks that felt like me to change our vote.
    (As related to by the gay community.We religious nuts) out number the gay community
    How many other close electorate may have been lost due to what Labor no stands for.
    My Bible tells me to avoid any one that supports what Labor is now standing for. The only thing I agree with Tony Abbot on is his view on gay marriage. These days the only thing that Labor has a view on is gay marriage. Until labor returns to grass root politics I can no longer support the Labor party. Labor has become a signal policy party. GAY MARRIAGE.
    Tony is happy to keep Labor on the gay marriage chorus. As long as Labor supports gay marriage. Labor will keep loosing elections.

    Peter Hendy MP Federal Member for Eden-Monaro has come out and openly stated he will not support gay marriage. Me and 99 other like me is all it will take in all toughs close seats to help stop gay marriage.. Good luck Lobor

    ◄ Leviticus 20:13 ►

    Parallel Verses
    New International Version
    “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Leviticus 18:22New International Version (NIV)
    22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

    • Yes Don. I too, cannot vote for Labor Party till they hold extreme left view and support SSM and other position contrary to God Words. At the same time I will vote for a local member that stand clearly against such abomination: in some case Liberal representative are pro abortion and for SSM and I exclude them from getting my vote. Many Christian had vote for Labor candidate that are well prove to oppose the official agenda.
      I hope and I’m sure you too that Labor will move away from such position and that they will learn from pass lesson. Like you say our vote cont.

  3. rex

    Yes don i agree. I was always a traditional labor supporter until they went too far to the left and became another wing of the greens. I will never vote for labor again as long as they have these gay marriage obsessed politicians like shorten wong and pilberseck. Yes tony abbott has issues but at least he stands his ground and doesn’t cave in to vocal minorities. God bless abbott i say. The three mentioned and rudd who suddenly switched sides are all supposed christians as well who pick and choose lovey lovey words from the bible and forget about about the rest regarding morality and righteous conduct.

  4. What I find disturbing is how the powerful import of this article and others can be so lost on Americans that they could allow a fundamental structure of society to be changed on the slimmest of margins.


    Marriage equality advocates say allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way impacts anyone else, and make the point that marriage is not about children because many opposite-sex couples are infertile or do not want children.

    In actual fact they want to destroy marriage as we know it by diminishing it to a mere vehicle with which to validate adult relationships, which opens the way to incestuous close relative marriages and polygamous group marriages.

    Marriage equality advocates like Labor leader Bill Shorten said failing to legalize SSM says to same-sex partners: “your relationships are not equally valued by the State, your love is less equal before the law”.

    Thus it follows that if we fail to legalize incestuous and polygamous marriages we say to closely related partners or polygamous partners: “your relationships are not equally valued by the State, your love is less equal before the law”.

    This amounts to an act of cultural genocide against the traditions our ancestors created to protect children and society. We honour our ancestors by defending traditional marriage involving a man and woman who are not closely related.

    Close relative marriages validate inbreeding. Group marriages validate families in which violent jealousies naturally arise. SSM validates motherless and fatherless families wherein children naturally suffer developmental and emotional harm.

    Such children are semi-orphans who lack a male or female gender role model, the experience of motherhood or fatherhood, and the complimentary characteristics a mum and dad bring to their wellbeing and development.

    Mothers and fathers parent differently, play differently, discipline differently, teach love and respect for the opposite sex, and fully socialize children by helping them understand the very real differences between the two sexes.

    A problem that arises is when we use long winded arguments to oppose such marriages, which should only be used in support of a simple and emotionally powerful argument in support of traditional man-woman marriage.

    This must relate to the rights and needs of vulnerable children, who have an equal right to both a mum and a dad which has primacy over the desires of guardians who have an ethical and legal duty to protect children under their care

    Sadly the supporters of traditional marriage are disunited, thus the need for a united front which focuses on the rights and needs of children, not attacking anyone as this is counterproductive and can lead us to become hateful people.

    I remember the actor Richard Gere once saying that we should treat people who do bad things as being ill or ignorant, who need our help. Many same-sex attracted people have been abused so we must not compound their suffering.

    I recently found out that the actress Dana Plato died of an intentional drug overdose in 1999 (she played the daughter in the TV series Diff’rent Strokes), the day after being insulted by callers on The Howard Stern Show (one called her a “has been”) which she appeared on in an attempt to revive her career. Her bereaved son committed suicide in 2010.

    I was cringing as I listened to the interview on YouTube in which she talked about her life, which took a bad turn after being sacked from Diff’rent Strokes for becoming pregnant because the male producers thought this would not fit the show’s “wholesome image”. A heartless act. Let’s try not to emulate the callousness of these men.

    Adults in unconventional relationships have a right to formalize their partnerships (e.g., civil unions), but civil marriage is rightly set aside for man-woman couples who are not close relatives as they form the basis for the traditional (natural) family which countless studies have found is the best environment for children.

    Some children are seemingly unaffected by being motherless or fatherless, but we make laws to protect the weak, not the strong. Thus the promotion of children’s best interests makes it entirely appropriate for the State to preference the traditional family via civil marriage. All children do best with a mum and a dad, including gay and lesbian children.

    This stance has implications. If we believe children have a right to both a mother and a father it follows that we must support the introduction of laws which ensure that all children have both a mum and a dad in their lives, if necessary by assigning a relative or care worker to this role if a child’s legal guardian is unable or unwilling to do so.

  6. It’s a classic example of the minority shouting loudest. God says NO and that’s the end of it. Thankfully the liberal party in power and that they will have enough sway within the party to go against this media frenzy. At what point do WE get our say on this matter?

  7. A child’s wellbeing is affected by the quality of parenting and family relationships, rather than parental number, gender or sexuality.

  8. I believe that the minority should not rule the majority this matter should be decided by referendum not by the few politicians that want to please the minority for VOTES! This is another political correctness going wrong. A Marriage IS between a MAN and WOMAN.

  9. It’s my belief that every child has the right to a Mother and a Father. It’s the way it has always been, forever since time began with Adam and Eve.
    Why change our way of life and family as we have always known it for a minority? What are the consequences in years to come?? Our children are a precious gift from God conceived
    from Love when a man and a woman join together as one in a loving relationship and the child is conceived in this way. It is not our right to change God’s Law as marriage was ordained for
    the procreation of children to be reared by a Mother and a Father. Think of the Child’s best interests. The children must come first!

  10. I used to lean towards labor – I voted for them in both the 2007 and 2010 (federal) elections. I didn’t vote for them in 2013 however from what I can remember I was still considering voting for them in the 2013 election. I can’t however seriously consider voting for them this time – it is not even so much their general view on same sex marriage but rather more the attitude towards it – specifically the attitude of Bill Shorten (yes I know the attitude of a party shouldn’t simply be based on the attitude of its leader however I specifically want to focus on Bill Shorten). I could be wrong but from what I have seen from Bill Shorten he seems to throw off at members of parliament that don’t support same sex marriage.

    Ironically I actually think that Tony Abbott (and Malcolm Turnbull too, but I want to specifically focus on Tony Abbott) took the issue of same sex marriage more seriously than Bill Shorten. Tony Abbott recognizes that there is a serious debate in the community concerning same sex marriage that should be taken seriously (Malcolm Turnbull seems to as well). Bill Shorten (someone could correct me but this is just based on what I have noticed) seems to have a disrespectful attitude to members of parliament who oppose same sex marriage and doesn’t really seem to treat it as a serious debate.

    Just my thoughts.

    • Technical note in regards to my message: I also voted for Labor in 2004 (the first federal election in which I was eligible to vote).


Leave a comment