[Australia: Federal parliament representative: July 2004]

Dear sir/madam

I note the decision to remit the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill to a Senate Committee for further consideration. I understand that a significant reason for this has been pressure from parties wishing to expand the legal meaning of “marriage” to embrace sexual union between two adults of the same gender.

I submit that this is to abuse language employed throughout cultures to identify union between a man and a woman, implying procreation, family security and fidelity strengthened by the pleasure these give.

Since the increased incidence of sexual permissiveness from the ’sixties, enough time has now elapsed for sociological studies to reveal the destructive effects of heterosexual infidelity and family break-up on relationships and families. It is reasonable to predict that further erosion of the concepts of marriage and stable family life will, in due time, result in further social fragmentation and distress.

People committed to long-term consenting adult relationships involving same-gender sex should have the same civil rights as others, and deserve protection from homophobic persecution. These may reasonably include recognition of contracts or covenants entered into by them with respect to the shared ownership of property and inheritance rights. This needs to be written into law.

But it is not a necessary civil right that they be allowed to re-define the concept of marriage to cover such covenants. That becomes an abuse of the rights of those who honour the term’s original sense, and the rights and responsibilities accruing.

As an educator, parent, and citizen, I urge the Senate Committee to endorse the amendments already proposed that seek to retain the traditional meaning of “marriage.”

Yours faithfully

Related Reading: