Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has tried to make a case for the inexorable march of history. The fact is there is no inexorable march of history. Consider for instance communism—once seen as inevitable, but now consigned to the dustbin of history. This is really not about marriage equality. We already have that. What is being sought is a change to the definition of marriage, which is not the same as marriage equality.

Proponents make, in my view, a very fundamental error. They believe that marriage is only about love. At the moment, the statement is that it is between two people who love each other. But, if it really is just about love, why restrict it to one and one? Why not polygamy, polyandry or any other admix? And what is the nature of love that should be used anyway? After all, I love my siblings, I love my children and I love my parents, but does that mean that I should marry them? How about the love of, say, two sisters, who have lived together most of their lives—should that be called marriage, or does there have to be sex involved to constitute marriage?

In reality, marriage is about family and, to use an old term, the begetting of children. You don't think that is the case? If it is not, why is there legislation in many places, including half of the US states, that does not allow marriage between first cousins? It is not that they cannot love each other or have a sexual relationship. It is about the higher probability that they will have children with genetic problems. Indeed, if it is just about love, why the proscription of the marrying of siblings? After all, apart from the yuk factor that is our natural genetic predisposition against those sorts of relationships due to our innate knowledge of the genetic problems they would cause, why not allow incestuous marriage if one or both of the parties agree to be sterilised?

I find even bringing up the concept distasteful, but these questions need to be asked if marriage is not about family and the producing of offspring. In fact, in Australia, we do allow marriages between first cousins, and also between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. The reality of all of these laws, different though they may be in different nations, is that it is all about the resulting offspring. Therefore, almost universally, marriages between siblings, and of parents with their children, are considered incest and are taboo and illegal. But when you look at it, once again, all of these differences in proscription relate to offspring. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is only about love. After all, consider what marriage, through history, has been. At its essence, it is about providing the woman, the mother of the children, with the security that the father will be there for the duration of the upbringing of the children.

What is being sought here, as I said, is not marriage equality but something different, something extra, and therefore a changing of the definition of marriage. Does it not make more sense to simply come up with some other defined union that is, in fact, just based around love, however that love is defined to be? The fact is that those in homosexual unions have had the same rights as heterosexual couples as far as property, distribution of assets following the break-up of the relationship, inheritance issues et cetera are concerned for the best part of a decade. And the member for Moreton is right: Attorney-General McClelland introduced that legislation.

So that is no longer at issue. Why change the definition of an institution that has been around for thousands of years? Why not a new institution and leave the institution of marriage alone? Marriage is fundamentally about procreation and the supportive upbringing of those children to maturity. We should be very careful about making haste with an institution that has served society so well for so long.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context