Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this debate today to present to the House of Representatives a petition signed by 265 people. This is one of a number of petitions that are now coming into my office; others will be put to the Standing Committee on Petitions for their approval and I will once again table them in the House. The petition is from a group of people who have drawn to the attention of the House of Representatives that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, as the foundation upon which our families are built and upon which our society stands. I fully agree with all of the sentiments of the signatories on that petition.

I just want to make a couple of points I picked up in a submission on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 from the FamilyVoice Australia group. It graphically spells out what I and these constituents are concerned about in relation to the proposal that we should look at marriage equality for people who have alternative lifestyles or gay lifestyles. In the ‘Conclusion and recommendation’ part of their submission, they say:

The Bill would radically alter the nature of “marriage” and the law of Australia by effectively abolishing marriage as traditionally understood in most times and places and in common law in Australia since settlement. Instead a new thing, falsely called “marriage”, would be established in law: a union between any two persons.

Such a legal concept would lack any obvious connection with the purpose of marriage as traditionally understood: to regulate the sexual relationships of men and women to ensure the well-being of children by providing for a publicly recognised commitment to a voluntary, exclusive and lifelong union of a man and a woman.

I concur wholeheartedly with those sentiments in the submission. I would just make a final point: no matter how intense they may appear to be, same-sex relationships cannot be considered the equivalent of marriage. They confer none of the unique benefits of marriage and family on Australian society.

In closing, I wear a white ribbon here today. As a male, I do not have to give a commitment to the terrible issue of assault on women. I left home when I was 14 years of age because I could no longer tolerate the physical abuse I received protecting my mother from the age of eight years. My commitment to this issue is life long and I commend all parliamentarians on their support for the elimination of violence against women. I would like to table the petition I have just talked about on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to the parliament.

The petition read as follows—

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:

RETAIN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN

We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage”, as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children.

We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, be opposed.

from 265 citizens

Petition received.