The Silent Voice in this Debate

"Injustice against the child is the central offence of ‘marriage equality’. We are guilty of stealing a child’s birthright when we institute motherless families and fatherless homes as an ideal in our law.

Why would we do that to a future child? Have we learnt nothing from past government policies that broke bonds of blood and belonging? In 2013 our then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, gave the National Apology for Forced Adoption of babies from their teenage mothers. In a moving speech she confessed our shame for a policy that broke “the most primal and sacred bond there is, the bond between a mother and her baby”.[i] Just three years later we are being asked to support a new policy that will break that primal and sacred bond all over again; for if we institute the ‘marriage’ of two men, we are instituting motherless families. We are saying that future children do not need a mother; we are legislating to guarantee they will not have a mother. We are shallow fools. Which future Prime Minister will have to deliver our heartfelt National Apology to the “motherless generation”?" "Stealing from a Child - The Injustice of Marriage Equality"by David van Gend

Recently, a lady approached me with tears in her eyes. It took her a little while to regain her composure and find the words that needed to be spoken.

Margot* was a victim of forced adoption. Her daughter was removed from her at birth because she was a single mum. Her daughter was raised in a loving home and although she loved her family, she was always, at every moment, acutely aware that something intrinsic to her very being was missing.

Margot recalls the day her daughter made contact. It wasn’t a happy day. Her daughter spoke to her of betrayal and loss. Of being denied her biological reality in preference for an imitation.

Through tears Margot said: “They’re doing it again. Commercial Surrogacy is creating a new generation of children who are taken from their mother. No one spoke up for my baby girl. Please speak up for these children. Don’t let them do this again.”

Australian Equality Party Leader, Jason Tuazon-McCheyne admitted last year on Sky News that commercial surrogacy is absolutely on the agenda for SSM Activists: 

Call this out and you will be ridiculed by the likes of Aussie comedian Josh Thomas, who sums it up perfectly:

Yes, once SSM is legal, women are reduced to merely a ‘uterus.’ It’s a win for misogyny, but not marriage.

And what we’ve learnt from other countries where SSM is legal, is that commercial surrogacy is the next logical step. After all, the right to “marry and found a family” is a compound right. So once two men or two women are granted the “right to found a family,” unwanted childlessness becomes discrimination and an injustice. What follows is Baby Markets where women and children are sold as commodities.

“Senator Wong may well have a partner and that partner may well have borne children but that partner is not “the mother” of Ms Wong’s children. Unless every biologist in the world is wrong, the partner is the mother of those children and while they may have been adopted by Ms Wong they were fathered by a male.” Piers Akerman

A grave injustice is perpetrated when an adult pursues a biological connection with a child and in so doing, denies that child the very biological connection they so desperately crave.

We MUST be allowed to call that out for what it is.

For the children of Sperm Donors, like Geradline Hewitt, who were told they “should just be grateful to be alive.”

For the children of surrogates who will never hear their mother’s voice. Never experience that most primal of bonds – the bond between mother and child.

And for those children who will be denied the right to even know who their biological parents are. Who will not have access to their family’s medical history, biological history or cultural history because it will hurt the feelings of the grownups who selfishly seek to call them their own.

For these children we cannot remain silent.

They need to know that someone spoke up for them when they didn’t have a voice. When those who seek to deny them their very identity call us to be silent, we will speak. And we will be heard. For them.

In the words of poet Nayyirah Waheed:

‘no’ might make them angry,
it will make you free.

If no one has ever told you, your freedom is
more important than their anger.

*Margot’s name has been changed to protect her identity and that of her child

[i] Wroe D., “Amid the madness, Gillard shines with mother apology,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 22, 2013,

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

6 Responses

  1. Allowing the state to make decisions for us is in the way of SSM is giving away our responsibility as citizens.
    Let us all have a conscience vote, not just the pollies and big business.

    I like that quote, “‘no’ might make them angry, but, it will make you free”.
    Remember the “Say no to drugs” campaign… well … Say no to the biased media which has become the opiate of the masses.

    Just say no.

  2. Awesome article.

    It is obvious to a blind man that a child needs a mother and a father.

    Recently a bloke at work told me how a child of a lesbian couple approached him and asked him if he would be her dad, because was wanted a father.

    I hope the Australian voters will remember the children when voting on same sex marriage in September

  3. My Son was “surrendered ” too. 1971. I was blessed to be approached very quietly by a nurse who sneaked me into the nurse’s station where they had my wee boy in his bassinet. I wasn’t allowed to hold him but sat next to him for two or three minutes and held his tiny hand. I spoke with him in the phone once. I’ve never forgotten him; I never will. I wasn’t given a choice in those days. I’d love to tell him that he was Not Abandoned. Ever!

  4. Thanks for this article. It’s sad to see otherwise well-educated and articulate women like former Premier of Tasmania, Lara Giddings, and current Lord Mayor of Hobart, Sue Hickey, actively pushing the LGBTIQ agenda, as the powerful male leaders of this movement simply have no place for women in their lives.

    Sometimes, LGBTIQ activists don’t silence the child’s voice; they take possession of a child, and use it as their mouthpiece. In last Saturday’s Mercury, there was a letter from a LGBTIQ activist saying her 6-year-old son had asked why his parents weren’t married. She had replied, because same-sex couples aren’t allowed to marry in Australia. She said he replied, “That’s just dumb”, and closed her letter with “love is a terrible thing to hate”.

    But love “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:7). If this mother loved her child, she would tell him that only one of his mummies is his mummy. If he asked for a football, would she give him a soccer ball, and tell him it’s the same shape as a football? If he asked for a puppy and a pussy, would she give him two puppies, and tell him that two of the same thing is the same as two different things? Would she tell him that a puppy and a pussycat are the same, because each has four legs and a tail? How will he learn that boys and girls are different? As boys and girls grow, so do their differences. What does she tell him when he asks where he came from? Downloaded from social media, perhaps?

    The LGBTIQ party is proud and self-seeking, two things which have nothing to do with love (1 Cor. 13:4-5). If a widow with a son marries another man, he is called the boy’s stepfather, as this recognises he cannot actually be the boy’s father, but is acting in loco parentis. But when a woman with her son, takes another woman as her partner, they demand the second woman be legally recorded and actually regarded as the boy’s other parent. Lying love is dying love. A woman can no more marry another woman, than she can father another woman’s child.

  5. This article highlights the wrongs to children that will be ratified if SSM becomes legal. I do not believe SSM is a human right because it encroaches on other human rights such as the rights of children to their biological parents. It will also encroach on freedom of speech and religion. If we thought the Human Rights Commission was overstepping the mark now I hate to think of what that unelected bureaucracy would do if SSM was legal. The tragedy is that children who often don’t have a choice or voice are the innocent victims of these ill considered political decisions. The government has no business legalising something that automatically denies a child their mother or father.

  6. And there’s this…
    From March last year. (2016)
    MELISSA Etheridge has opened up about selecting a sperm donor for her two children, saying Brad Pitt was a serious contender to be the baby daddy.
    Etheridge met her then-partner Julie Cypher in 1988, and Cypher gave birth to the couple’s first child, Bailey, in 1997. Their second bub, Beckett, followed a year later. While there was plenty of speculation about who fathered the kids, Rolling Stone magazine revealed in 2010 that their biological father was musician David Crosby, from Crosby, Stills & Nash.
    But in an interview with Angela Bishop on Studio 10, the singer says Hollywood heart-throb Brad Pitt could’ve been their dad.
    “Well actually, he (Brad Pitt) was such a good friend of mine. And we did consider it,” the 54-year-old said. “And yet, I looked and I saw how badly he wanted children and I thought, ‘I don’t want to share this with someone who really, badly wants children because my children don’t need another parent — they have two.’
    end quote.

    That says it all. She pretends they are her children. Yet she is not their mother and she would deny the natural father the right to be the father.

Leave a comment