Tasmania’s gay marriage Bill fails for the second time…

MEDIA RELEASE: 29 October 2013

“On gay marriage: not Territories, not States, not even Federal Parliament.  On this most intimate matter, let the people speak in a Referendum!”

“The Labor-Green leadership of the ACT and Tasmania have shown contempt for our Constitution in trying to smuggle gay marriage in by a back door” said Dr David van Gend, a family doctor in Toowoomba, Queensland, and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

“Our Constitution clearly declares marriage to be a matter for Federal Parliament, and in Federal Parliament a Bill for same sex marriage was defeated by a large 2:1 majority only a year ago.

“That is the proper venue for the nation to deliberate on marriage, but the Labor-Green leadership of the ACT and Tasmania have not shown respect for due process; they are obsessed with re-engineering society in their own radical image.  In Tasmania, with half its adult population functionally illiterate and its economy struggling, the elected Labor-Green leadership has just wasted further precious Parliamentary time debating a motion to re-heat their Bill on same-sex marriage, which has flopped again in the Upper House.

“The constitutional larrikinism of Territories and States meddling with marriage needs to be quashed by the High Court, and the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament made clear. But beyond that, such a radical reordering of society would demand more than just a Federal Parliamentary debate: nothing less than the ultimate democratic authority of a referendum would validate transforming the institution that most intimately affects every person in Australia”, Dr van Gend said.

“Give all Australians a conscience vote on this proposed revolution in marriage and family, with its legislative creation of generations of motherless or fatherless children and its cultural enshrining of Mardi Gras morality. I have faith in the Australian people that, faced with a choice between the demands of two men to be called a marriage and the needs of a child to have, where possible, both a mum and a dad, they will vote on behalf of the child,” Dr van Gend concluded.


Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

Comments are closed.