Long-time opponent of LGBTI+ rights Senator Eric Abetz has said that the bill currently before the parliament to make changes to the Marriage Act goes far beyond the question that was put to the Australian people in the postal survey.

- Advertisement -

Speaking in the Upper House today, Senator Abetz argued that marriage is a social unit that pre-existed the nation state and parliaments.

“It is common to all cultures and its very rationale is about the best way for raising and socialising the next generation, providing the certainty and stability of the biological parents and the diversity of a female and male role model,” the Tasmanian senator said.

Quoting philosopher Bertrand Russell, Abetz noted that “it is through children alone that sexual relations became of importance to society.”

Senator Abetz said there was a long-standing link between children and marriage and that the UN Charter only extended the human right of marriage to men and women who aimed to form a family.

“Same-sex marriage is not a recognised human right such as freedom of speech, marriage between a man and a woman and freedom of religion, amongst others.”

“That of course does not of itself stop parliaments from legislating for it, and I suspect at the end of this process Australia will have changed its law on marriage. It’s a change I regret, for the sake of our children, but recognise Australians voted for such a change.”

“But let’s be clear – what were Australians asked during the postal survey? “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” The legislation before us is not restricted to same-sex couples, it goes a lot further. The explanatory memorandum tells us under Item 3: Definition of Marriage at Paragraph 13 “same sex couples and others will be able to marry for example this would include an intersex person and a gender diverse person who is legally recognised as having a non-specific gender.”

Senator Abetz went on to assert that the outcome may have been different should that postal survey question have included intersex and gender diverse people, despite many who identify as such already being allowed to marry under our current laws.

“The bill therefore goes further than that which was approved by the Australian people and adopts the ideology of gender fluidity which is part of the much discredited, rightly reviled and Orwellian-ly misnamed Safe Schools program. If gender fluidity were part of the campaign, the result may have been different.”

“If this was always intended then the question then the question should have been explicit. Australians deserve an explanation as to why it wasn’t.”

Debate on Senator Smith’s Marriage Bill is due to continue in the Senate into the evening, with time being extended into tomorrow’s session.

OIP Staff