Jo Lindgren (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013. Those in this place who know me are very aware of my views on this topic. To those honourable senators who do not know me very well: I look forward to your understanding of my long-held beliefs and reasoning.

I hold the firm belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. The sanctity of this union between a man and a woman is a cherished institution and recognised in our Constitution. It is the core component of the family.

My beliefs are not drawn from discriminatory influences, from political innuendo or from a misunderstanding of the world in which we live today. Who we choose as a partner, the way we cohabit and the personal lives we lead are choices for every individual to make for themselves. Personal choice and responsibility are championed in this country, and I will continue to be an ardent supporter of them. Therefore, the beliefs that I hold and will continue to embrace dearly should, in return, be respected and championed by those who have differing views.

During the course of this debate, I have no doubt that I and others of the same view as me will be labelled as intolerant and narrow-minded, and the list may go on. I must question the strength of the argument of the same-sex marriage supporters when they have to resort to name-calling. Are we to be denied the right to voice an opinion—an opinion we can clearly articulate without resorting to personal denigration?

One of the interesting arguments of the same-sex marriage supporters is that two people should be allowed to love who they choose. I do not know of any argument or legislation that states that an adult cannot love another adult of their choice. Marriage does not suddenly allow someone to love; I know I loved my husband before he even proposed to me.

This is the tragedy of the debate. Yes, my views may differ from those who believe in same-sex marriage, but my belief remains as strong as the belief of those in this chamber who oppose my view. There is always a small number of bad apples in the crate driving extremism and pushing the boundary of offensive behaviour, and they should fall into the category of 'bigot', but that is not the case with the vast majority of people who support the definition of marriage as it stands and oppose same-sex marriage. Here is where their argument falls down. As I have already stated, I am an ardent supporter of personal choice and I respect and will continue to respect those who have views that are different from mine. This debate is not about the differing views of people. This is not a debate about the terms of equality and discrimination. It is about the definition of 'marriage' and why it should remain unchanged, and that the Marriage Act must be kept in place as a union of a man and a woman.

I grew up in a family with Catholic values and beliefs. Does my destiny relate directly to that religious influence in my life? No, but it does define a lot of what I stand for and believe in. What I term 'Christian values' are also held by the vast majority, including those that choose not to worship Christ or any other god. Those values are about caring, being kind, holding to strong moral compasses and being community-minded. Those same values are also defined by not participating in discrimination or practicing antisocial behaviour. One way that we can achieve this is by having a mature debate based on the principles of that in which we believe, and also that which is for the interests of those we represent.

Marriage blesses the union of man and a woman, and possible children to that marriage. It has done so throughout human history, and across all cultures and religions. As the Hon. Eric Abetz said, it predates parliaments. It is arguably our oldest institution.

Ask why this cause has suddenly gained some traction, while other have felt no need to bring it forward, yet now they are championing the cause. Why did others, when they had the chance to vote for same-sex marriage, vote no against same-sex marriage? Was it for political gain? I am going to repeat some of the words of Senator Wong. She said: 'On the issue of marriage, I think, in reality, there is a cultural, religious and historical view around it which we have to respect. I do respect the fact that that's how people view the institution.' Have others who once held this view had a change of heart also? So where is their sincerity?

I hope that those who champion same-sex marriage do this for the right reasons. I hope those who champion this cause champion it with good conscience and have regard for those who are hopeful of change. To those who are disappointed with my views: at least you know where I stand and know that I am not going to use your hopes for my political gain. I have taken the view that the public of Australia needs to be included in this decision. I ask those who support same-sex marriage: have you considered the full consequences of this idea? What will occur if this is successful? What will happen to the adoption laws? Will they too become equal?

With adoption waiting times being about five years, a traditional couple will not consider placing their names on the list unless they have a medical reason preventing them from having children naturally. This could be five years or more after marriage, depending on your age. They then generally wait and establish their marriage, home and, maybe, careers. After trying for a while they may seek medical assistance, then IVF, and then, after a time of trying to conceive, the body clock is ticking and due to the age of the woman her body starts working against her. They will then try adoption, only to find those who have not had to endure this pain are ahead of them on the adoption waiting list. This would easily be 10 to 15 years later.

A same sex couple, knowing they cannot bear children naturally, place themselves on this list at the time of marriage, or earlier. Do we then move traditional couples who have spent years and great expense to have a child, and failed, to the top of the list? If we did, I have no doubt that the howls of indignation and discrimination would be loud from some parts of this chamber.

Some have failed to consider what is next. What are the future consequences? Do we now expect women in traditional relationship to have children early to ensure they can have children, to put aside career aspirations, to race into relationships in case their body and the system works against them and adoption becomes harder? If you think I am wrong then go to the staff rooms of schools or the meal rooms of police stations and see how many are struggling to have children after establishing a career. As an educator, I have seen the results of fathers and mothers not being present in the upbringing of a child, and, to be frank, it is not good.

As a daughter, I know of the special relationship a daughter has with her father; no more than a male has with their mother. And, yes, I have also seen bad traditional families, but I do not wish to create further social issues that will need addressing in 10 to 20 years' time.

Some will ask why I, as an Indigenous woman who has firsthand knowledge and experience of discrimination, am supporting a form of discrimination? I am not supporting discrimination. I am supporting families. Families have throughout nature and history consisted of a male and a female, securing the future of their race and culture. In Indigenous cultures, children were seen as the clan's future and security, therefore traditional marriage was not just supported, it was needed. It was a matter of survival.

Please do not point to Ireland. It had 60 per cent of voters turning out, producing an actual support of just 37 per cent. But that is something they will have to accept and deal with, due to voter apathy. America's decision just does not cut it—a court decision, not one made by either the legislature or the people. Nine people to make a decision for a nation, with four dissenting. This does not represent a popular choice but rather the narrow choice of social elites.

Despite being a Senator for only a short period of time, the last count of emails I have received on this issue is in the thousands. They show that the vast majority of those who have contacted me oppose same sex marriage—it is approximately 22,000.

Why do some fear participative democracy? If those who want same-sex marriage are truly serious, then let them campaign for it. But first, let those within their own ranks who oppose it openly campaign against, as well.