Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The contribution just made by the member for Melbourne highlights a fundamental divide which exists and which this debate over the last few days, weeks and months has illustrated. For the member for Melbourne, and those with his position on this, marriage is a matter of love and equality. I accept that that's a conscientiously held belief of many people. But there are also millions of Australians who have a different belief about the meaning and the purpose of marriage. For them, marriage is about a union of a man and a woman. Whilst this debate will resolve the issue of the definition of the matter in law in Australia, it doesn't resolve the differences between the two views about marriage. The outcome of this debate won't change the views of those who support the proposition before the chamber or those who oppose it. Millions of Australians will continue to believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

The question that this amendment raises is whether or not those millions of our fellow Australians—indeed, all Australians—can express their view as to what the meaning of marriage is and what the purpose of marriage is without the fear of being hauled before some tribunal. This is not fanciful, because it has already occurred. It has occurred whilst the meaning and the definition of marriage is that which exists at this point. As many other speakers have said, the Archbishop of Hobart was hauled before a tribunal for simply propounding the millennia-old understanding of marriage by not just Christians but other faiths as well; whilst the existing definition is what it is now, he was hauled before a tribunal.

See this speech in context