TV Ad # 1: “Marriage Equality? What about Equality for the Child?”



The most effective slogan of the ‘same-sex marriage’ lobby is ‘marriage equality’. It sounds like an issue of justice.

But if “equality” for adults means inequality for kids, where is the justice in that? If children are forced to miss out on the primal relationship with their mother or their father, just to meet the demands of some homosexual adults, where is the justice in that proposal?

Our TV ad turns the justice claim on its head and says, “What about equality for kids?”

 What does our Ad say?


We hear a lot about ‘Marriage Equality’, but what about Equality for kids??
Children have an EQUAL RIGHT, wherever possible, to BOTH a mum and a dad.
So-called ‘marriage equality’ forces a child to miss out on a mother, or a father.
That’s not ‘equality’ for the kids who miss out!
That’s not marriage!
Give every child their chance of a mum AND a dad.


Q&A on ‘Marriage Equality’


Q. Shouldn’t gay couples be treated equally to straight couples?
A. They are. All couples in Australia, whether gay or straight, are treated exactly the same under the law. There is no difference.
  • Any gay couple in Australia is treated as a de facto couple, and has exactly the same legal status as, for example, former Prime Minster Julia Gillard and her partner Mr Tim Mathieson who were a de facto couple (that means they were not married). There is no difference in status under the law.
  • All de facto couples, whether gay or straight, are treated exactly the same as married couples. There is no difference under the law.
  • There used to be a few laws that discriminated against gay couples on things like taxation privileges, superannuation, Medicare or next of kin status. But Federal Parliament changed all those laws in 2008 – and both political parties agreed to get rid of these last few points of unjust discrimination.
Q. But gay couples cannot marry. Isn’t that discrimination?
A. No, in the sense that ‘just discrimination’ is not really discrimination at all. We do it all the time.
  • In other areas of life, we see that boys are discriminated against by not being allowed to attend a girls’ school or use girls’ toilets; only women can go to women’s hospital; only people over a certain age can marry and you can’t marry more than one person at a time. Only a qualified electrician is allowed to work on your house’s wiring; everyone else is excluded under law. None of this is ‘discrimination’ in any bad sense.
  • In the area of marriage, it is ‘just discrimination’ to keep marriage man and woman, because only the relationship of male and female can create a child. Only the relationship of man and woman can give a child both a mother and a father. Nobody else meets that qualification. That’s marriage.
  • ‘Discrimination’ can mean the ability to tell between different things. A jeweler needs ‘discriminating vision’ to tell between a genuine diamond and a fake. So if the relationship of two men is a different thing to the marriage of a man and a woman, it is the right sort of ‘discrimination’ to be able to tell between these two different things.
    • Married couples have signed up to the vital natural project, common to all mammals, of finding a mate, establishing a home and (usually) starting a family – which is of public concern, as the government shares responsibility for the wellbeing of children.
    • Gay couples have signed up to the private project of an intimate relationship – which is nobody else’s business. These are two different things, so it would be unjust to say they are the same thing.


Q. But some kids already miss out on a Mum or a Dad. Isn’t this putting down single parents?
A. Not at all. Single parents usually do a great job in very difficult circumstances. But think of this:
  • Nobody ever wants a child to miss out on a mother or a father!
  • No government should ever force a child to miss out on a mother or a father!
  • Laws for gay marriage will do exactly that:
    • Laws for gay marriage mean gay parenting, because marriage includes the right to adoption and surrogacy.
    • That means laws that create ‘marriage’ without a woman effectively create families without a mother.
    • And laws that create ‘marriage’ without a man deliberately create families without a dad.
  • Is it right for us to make laws that allow for government-approved creation of motherless or fatherless children?
    • Didn’t we just apologise to children of forced adoption, and children of the stolen generations, and what about children created by anonymous sperm donors who suffer through not knowing who their father is? Why would the government find a whole new way to break the natural bond between mother, father and child.
    • Do we never learn from our mistakes?

SEE MORE at our links:


Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube