Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

They did not include it in their marriage bill, Senator Boswell. The requirement that marriage is to be between a man and a woman was also discarded. So this proposal was in line with many proposals for same-sex marriage that insist that the exclusivity of traditional marriage needs to be modified to accommodate the different mores of same-sex relationships.

What did the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report, and specifically my dissenting report, on that Greens bill in November 2009 say? It says that marriage between a man and a woman has ‘particular benefits to society’ that warrant recognition and protection. I quoted the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, which said:

It is a union that is publicly recognised and treated as special, distinguished from other types of relationships because of its unique capacity to generate children and to meet children’s deepest needs for the love and attachment of both their father and mother.

In my view, every child entering this world should have a reasonable expectation, all things being equal, of a mother and a father. I believe this strongly and deeply. Proponents of same-sex marriage have sought to underplay the importance of male and female role models in the upbringing of children and to discount the importance of children in any consideration of whether same-sex marriage should be sanctioned. They have sought instead to argue that marriage is primarily about two people’s commitment to each other, and they ignore children’s rights. While I recognise that commitment is essential in a marriage relationship, the raising of children in the best possible environment can never be taken out of the equation. Accordingly, I quoted the Australian Christian Lobby in that report. They said:

Reducing marriage to a simple contract of consent and love between two people is a revisionist approach that has neither context nor legitimacy. It is a selfish, adult-centred approach that rejects the broader cultural significance of marriage and its centrality to children and society. It discards the significance of marriage as an important social good held by a shared community as a public commitment to family and the raising of children.

So I believe there is a clear public good associated with the marriage status quo. I am of the view that this public good should be recognised and strongly supported, and for that reason I support proposals that resource education programs for marriage and counselling for people seeking to marry or, indeed, in a marriage relationship. I certainly support whatever we can do to support marriage as an institution.

In that report I also quoted Cardinal George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, who said:

It is not unjust discrimination against homosexual couples to uphold marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. Justice, in fact, requires society to recognise and respect this difference.

I acknowledge the work in 2008 in which over 80 pieces of legislation were amended to remove any discrimination with respect to same-sex couples from our Commonwealth laws. That has bipartisan support and it went through the parliament accordingly.

I would like to also refer to a number of other points on this matter. What is being proposed by proponents of same-sex marriage is not mere finetuning of the definition of marriage but a full-on assault on one of its key elements: namely, that it involves the union of a man and a woman. To change the definition of marriage to encompass a union between any two persons would be effectively to abolish marriage in Australian law by replacing it with something quite different and alien. Recognising a right of two people of the same sex to marry would not expand the established right to marry but would redefine the legal meaning of marriage. Marriage has traditionally been given a highly respected and protected status in law precisely because it regulates the sexual relationship between men and women, the only sexual relationship that can result in the conception and birth of a child.

I want to refer to a recent opinion piece by Dr David van Gend, a very good article in the Courier Mail of Tuesday, 16 November, entitled ‘Same-sex marriage hurts kids’. He indicated in his article:

The gay marriage debate, at its heart, is not about the rights and needs of the adults, but of the child.

He said:

A child needs at least the chance of a mum and a dad in his or her life and same-sex marriage makes that impossible.

Of course, if you support same-sex marriage, you also automatically support gay adoption, and that is a concern; it is a matter that I certainly do not support. Dr van Gend said:

The “marriage” of two women would deprive an adopted boy of his role model for being a man, and the “marriage” of two men would deprive a growing girl of a mother to learn from and confide in.

He makes some other good points in his article.

I will now move on. At the Australian Christian Heritage Forum held on 6 and 7 August 2006 I said:

The consistent attack on the denigration of Australia’s Christian heritage, whether it be by the institution of marriage, the push for a valueless education system or the removal of Christmas carols and the nativity scene from schools and other places, it seems that at every juncture the Christian community and its leaders were defending.

Of course, the grassroots response in defence of marriage between a man and a woman received overwhelming community support and ultimately bipartisan parliamentary support, an excellent result—referring to the 2004 amendment. But I now want to throw out a clarion call, a call to action. You see, the Greens, with the support of Labor in the House of Representatives, have passed a motion and they want to get feedback from their local communities. I call on members of the public, members of the churches, members of families and members of communities right across this country to express your view. Labor at the moment is conflicted on this matter. There is a fight within the Labor Party for its very soul. There are people in this chamber who have a view that is contrary to my own—