"There are conflicting messages regarding what will be in the Federal marriage legislation amendment and when it will be made known. It seems that in the next week or two the amendment will be presented. But it may just address same-sex couples who go overseas, "marry," then return here to have their union recognised. The amendment may not include a solid biological definition of male and female.

"I include below contact details, as well as info on what is at stake and what we need to say to our Federal MPs. Please read on, and then write a short email or letter to your local Members. Your action (or lack of action) may well determine if heterosexual marriage has a future here in Australia."

Many thanks Bill Muehlenberg

Who is my member? What is my electorate? If you do not know who your members are, or what electorate you are in, call this number: 13 23 26. You can also go to this website to determine your electorate and members: <http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/main.htm> http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/main.htm

Federal Member full contact details: To view the list of Federal MHR's: <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp> http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp To view the list of Federal Senators: <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/si-alpha.htm> http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/si-alpha.htm

Federal Member email addresses Federal MHR's list: <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/Email.asp> http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/Email.asp Federal Senators list: <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/email.htm> http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/email.htm

Why we need to strengthen our marriage laws

Bill Muehlenberg

Federal Cabinet is now considering an amendment to tighten up the Federal Marriage Act 1961 so that various exotic versions of marriage cannot become legal in Australia. This move is necessary because of a number of worrying developments which effectively overturn the universal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman. Consider some recent events:

*In October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court ruled that, in effect, two women could marry. A woman who decided to become a man, and renamed herself Kevin, had taken up a relationship with another woman, Jennifer, and began steps to marry in 1999. The judge ruled that "man" could mean a variety of things, and not just be related to the constraints of biology. Psychological and social considerations, in other words, could also be considered when we define (or redefine)

'male' and 'female'.

*In February 2003 the Full Bench of the Family Court ruled in the Kevin and Jennifer case that the common law test of what a man and a woman mean could include psychological factors, allowing transsexuals to marry.

*In mid-2002 the then Attorney-General Daryl Williams was given confidential legal advice saying that the Act was so wide open that courts could easily interpret gay and lesbian unions as legally valid marriage.

*Both the Democrats and the Greens have moved to amend the Act to allow same-sex marriage.

*High Court Justices Michael Kirby and Michael McHugh have indicated that they believe the word 'marriage' in section 51 of the Australian Constitution can be understood to include same-sex marriage.

*In June 2003 Ontario Canada legalised same-sex marriage. Given that there are no residency requirements there, couples from around the world can go there, get "married" and return to their home country.

*In January 2004 a Melbourne homosexual couple did just that. They claim to be married and want the Family Court to recognise their union.

*In April 2003 Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson of the Family Court declared that a 13-year-old girl could undergo a sex change procedure because she felt that she was really a boy.

*In May 2004 the Victorian Lower House passed legislation allowing transsexual people to change their birth certificate gender. The Upper house is expected to pass the bill as well.

*In May 2004 the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Croup said it would consider charging the Australian newspaper and Archbishop George Pell under the State's vilification laws for an article he wrote defending marriage.

These and other developments mean that the normal understanding of marriage is seriously at risk. Therefore the Australian Family Association has proposed that the Government do four things to strengthen marriage:

1. Incorporate into Statute Law the existing common law definition of marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

2. Ensure that 'male' and 'female' are defined biologically, not socially or psychologically.

3. Ensure that the traditional understanding of marriage not be changed, except by referendum of the Australian people.

4. Ensure that foreign marriages not in accord with the accepted understanding not be recognised as legally valid in Australia.

WHAT TO WRITE (this is taken from the ACL)

Please cover the following points:

-note that you were encouraged to hear of the Government's proposal to define marriage in legislation;

-urge your local MP to enshrine the definition of marriage as being BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN to the exclusion of all others;

-mention you are disappointed that the Federal Government did not overturn the ACT's legislation to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. This legislation is in breach of the principles contained in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which state that any intervention by government must be in the best interests of the child; and

-encourage your MP to seek to quickly overturn the ACT adoption legislation once the amendments to the Marriage Act have been passed.

We appreciates your efforts to help protect the Biblical definition of marriage.