Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Changing marriage is not inevitable

By Lyle Shelton - posted Thursday, 2 April 2015


Despite Gavin Fernando’s assertions to the contrary on news.com.au last week, so-called “marriage equality” is losing its air of inevitability.

In the past few weeks, we have begun to hear alternative voices in the long-running debate to change the definition of marriage.

Suddenly high profile gays such as Dolce and Gabbana are speaking up for children’s rights to be raised by their mother and father.

Advertisement

And children raised by same-sex couples, like Heather Barwick, are talking about the “ache” in their hearts caused by the absence of a father.

The debate is shifting from the desires of adults to the rights of children.

The vitriolic and intolerant backlash against Dolce and Gabbana for even raising the rights of the child is causing many people to wonder why the redefining marriage lobby is so touchy about opinions which don’t suit its political agenda.

Those seeking to redefine marriage were hoping the Greens and Senator David Leyonhjelm would succeed in their push to have the Liberal Party grant a conscience vote on redefining marriage last week.

The redefining marriage lobby organised 13,000 emails to the Liberals urging a conscience vote be granted. Recognising that a well-organised push was on, ACL rallied pro-marriage supporters and 20,000 responded in just three days.

Leyonhjelm has now withdrawn his “freedom to marry” bill for the time being after his allies in the Liberal Party declined to speak up as planned at last week’s party room meeting in Canberra.

Advertisement

Fernando attacks Social Services Minister Scott Morrison’s reasons for not supporting a redefinition of marriage.

Morrison, like Dolce, Gabbana and Barwick, believes children should wherever possible be known, loved and raised by their parents.

Legislating a new definition of marriage requires children to forfeit a parent. Governments are required by international and domestic law to always act in the best interest of the child and so it is quite appropriate that the Liberals have a party position to vote as one on marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Lyle Shelton is Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby based in Canberra.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Lyle Shelton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Lyle Shelton
Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy