Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Absolutely. The goal of this push is to have, in a borrowed phrase, 'marriage equality'.

A recent Canadian court case has made the argument that three people in a loving relationship are not harming anyone so why not give them marriage too? Given the demographic rise in Australia of people from cultures like those in the Middle East where there is polygamy, you can safely assume there will be a marriage equality push for them sometime soon too. But why stop even there? In places where gay people, typically men, have been able to form recognised unions, they do not necessarily equate their commitment to monogamy. The term 'monogamish'—monogamy as a kind of 'monogamish'—has now been coined, a sort of 'open marriage'—a tautology if ever I heard one in this brave new world—as they feel a restriction to one partner is unrealistic and unnatural.

A three-year study of civil unions in Vermont found that 15 per cent of straight married men had sex outside their relationship, compared to 58 per cent of gay men in civil unions. Other studies have reported candid admissions from many gay couples about monogamy. Despite their intention to stay faithful, a survey found that only seven out of 156 same-sex couples had managed to do so. This 'monogamish' compromise is nothing short of surrender. As usual, all the guarantees about marriage staying the same have come to nought.

Speaking on a panel of homosexual authors at the 2012 Sydney Writers' Festival, Dennis Altman said:

Now I am going to speak as a gay man: one of the things about gay male culture is that it is not a monogamous culture. All the evidence we have suggests that monogamy is a myth. There are many longstanding gay relationships. There are virtually no longstanding monogamous gay relationships.

Now let me pause here for a minute. I am fortunate that I can say these things under parliamentary privilege. But could I say them outside? With the persecution of Archbishop Porteous, I am not so sure. But I digress.

Let us shift to the question of children. Children deserve a mother and a father. They need both. We are not talking here about only redefining marriage; we are talking about redefining the words 'mother' and 'father'. Already birth certificates around the country are being written to say 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'—or more—right here in the ACT. There is no such thing as parenting; there is only mothering and fathering. And children need both a mother and a father. Whenever a child is born, the mother will obviously be close by. And fathers should be close by as well. The two of them take responsibility to raise that child. When that does not happen, the social costs for the spouses and for the child and for society are very high.

Katy Faust, a recent visitor and speaker in Australia, told her own story of being raised by lesbian mothers. She spoke of the loving and caring nature of their parenting, but emphasised that neither were a substitute for the father she desperately needed in her life. This echoes the sentiments of another child of gay parents, Heather Barwick. In a speech delivered last year, she said:

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a—