Changing marriage is not inevitable

It is the sexual difference of men and women that enable children to be created. Sure, donors and technology can be used to produce children for same-sex couples but there are big ethical issues surrounding this.

This requires a child being removed from their biological parent and given to someone else without consent. It normalises the breaking of primal bonds between mother, father and child.

Those who have experienced that brokenness will testify that it has real and painful consequences.

No one denies that two men can love a baby, but is depriving that child of their mother ethical? Under what circumstances is it okay to deny a little girl her daddy? We need to be discussing this in the context of any debate to redefine marriage.

Tragedy and desertion cause children to miss out but this should never be engineered by government legislation.

As Dolce and Gabbana say, “the rights of children trump the right to children.”

Fernando is quite right in observing that not all marriages produce children. A minority of couples choose not to have children and some tragically suffer with infertility. But this fact cannot justify legislatively normalising the removal of children from their parents.

The government is not interested in who we love but it is rightly interested in how the next generation is socialised.

Marriage being a legal contract sends a strong message that society expects men and women to take responsibility and raise together (wherever possible) any children their union produces.

Senator Leyonhjelm’s extreme libertarian ideology, like Margaret Thatcher’s infamous quote, says there is no such thing as society.

Marriage law rightly rejects this individualistic ideology because a civil society cares about the next generation.

Even when a relationship breaks up, our courts determine access rights according to the best interests of the child. They are very much concerned about the kids’ rights to be known, loved and raised by their biological parents. Fernando cites overseas precedent for redefining marriage to say Australia is lagging. Sure around 13 nations of almost 200 have redefined marriage. But it is culturally arrogant of the west to think it should impose a new definition of marriage upon nations whose religions and culture deeply hold to gender-differentiated marriage.

Yes it is true that 37 US states have redefined marriage in law but what is not widely known is that in 33 this was done by unelected judges in court rulings, often against the declared will of the people.

Despite Senator Leyonhjelm’s assertions, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has made no promise to allow a conscience vote to Liberal MPs and Senators on changing the definition of marriage.

What he has said is that this would be a matter for the party room to decide through its democratic process. A political party which puts the rights of children first will continue to vote as one to uphold marriage between a man and a woman.