Text Size
A A A



 



Release Date:
 
You can use any combination of filters to list publications by key word, publication type, author, legal domain, concern and release date range.





News Article


ACT push for gay ‘marriage’ opens can of worms
Tuesday, April 30, 2013


“The ACT Labor-Greens’ plan to redefine marriage would not only deny biological reality, but also open a can of worms,” FamilyVoice research officer Ros Phillips said today.

“The ACT would create a rod for its own back by passing a law inconsistent with Commonwealth law,” Mrs Phillips said.  “There’s not much point being married in Canberra, only to find you are unmarried when you catch a bus to Queanbeyan.  Marriage issues should be decided for the whole of Australia in the federal parliament.”

Mrs Phillips said that same-sex activists keep trumpeting the notion that natural marriage is discriminatory, but there has been virtually no media coverage of an important Federal Court judgement declaring the opposite.  Justice Jayne Jagot ruled on 21 February 2013 that marriage is not discriminatory.

“Gay marriage advocate Rodney Croome’s reluctance to put the marriage issue to a referendum is telling,” Mrs Phillips said.  “It‘s a sign he does not believe there is truly widespread support for the redefinition of one of our most important social institutions.

“Marriage in its fundamental meaning – a lifelong exclusive union of a man and a woman –  is associated with a broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike,” Ros Phillips said.  “Potentially fertile male-female unions and naturally sterile same-sex unions are not equivalent – and the ACT should not pretend otherwise.”

Mrs Phillips said that “a plebiscite is merely a glorified public opinion poll with no legal effect.  It would be a pointless exercise and a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

“A referendum would offer real change.  Each Australian household would receive a booklet setting out the exact the wording of the proposed change to the constitution, with an explanation giving reasons for voting either yes or no. 

“But a referendum on the question of the fundamental meaning of marriage should not be held at the same time as a federal election.  There would be too many distracting issues at that time.” 

Categories:

  • Marriage and sexuality

View next article - Abortion drug hurts women




 


Subscribe or renew
subscription



Give now




S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30