Broken promise robs children of rights

 

George Christensen MP argues against governmenental sanction of same-sex marriage:

In a video recorded for the Australian Christian Lobby and for the benefit of people of faith right across this country, just before the 2009 election, the Prime Minister made this statement:

"We have determined, as a Labor Party, that the Marriage Act will stay unchanged so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act, as between a man and a woman, and we have also said that the Labor Party policy is we do not want to see the development of ceremonies that mimic marriage ceremonies and so that's the party policy and as Prime Minister, as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, that's obviously my policy and that's what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor government if we're re-elected."

That is a pretty clear, explicit and unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister, from the leader of the Labor Party. To press the point, in the context of this interview, the interviewer—the Australian Christian Lobby's Managing Director, Brigadier Jim Wallace—went on to ask the Prime Minister:

"Can I just say that obviously one of the concerns of the constituency here is the knowledge that this was only, it seemed, upheld by direct intervention of the highest levels of the party at the last Labor conference. So you're saying that a Gillard Labor government will keep that policy in place?"

To which the Prime Minister replied, 'Absolutely'.

Then she went on to say:

"I was personally and directly involved in this policy and its development at the last national conference."

So it is very clear that at the 2009 election the Australian Labor Party made a solemn commitment to the electorate to support the legal definition of 'marriage'—that definition, as it is in the current Act, being as between one man and one woman.

The Prime Minister famously made another promise less than a week before election day 2010 when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And just like we saw that promise broken last year, this month we have seen another promise broken with the introduction of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 by the Labor member for Throsby after Labor changed its policy at the national conference. And just like the broken carbon tax promise, this broken promise has come at the pushing of my good friend the member for Melbourne and also the Greens. It just shows, after the events of this morning, that in the Labor Party absolutely nothing has changed. We still have a minority government that does not know where it is going and that is completely driven and led by the nose by Senator Bob Brown and his Green colleagues.

Instead of hearing excuses as to why this change happened and hearing lines from the Prime Minister like 'I still support marriage as it is currently defined', the question needs to be asked as to why the Labor Party has gone awry on this issue. That is a decision the Labor Party has made. It obviously has the support of their rank and file and I assume the parliamentary party as well, or at least the majority of members. For the people who sit in churches every Sunday, who cast their vote for the Labor Party on the basis of the Prime Minister's statement, let me read that again:

"We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged, so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act as between a man and a woman."

I read that for those people who cast their vote for the Labor Party on the basis of this issue—this sacrosanct issue for them—not being changed, for the definition of marriage to be retained. What those people should hear from this government and from this Prime Minister is: 'Sorry. Sorry that we once again have duped you. Sorry that we said one thing before the election and now are doing a very, very different thing afterwards.'

But the proposal by the Labor Party to change the legal definition of marriage is not just wrong on the grounds that it is a broken promise. It also flies in the face of Australia's international obligations, because same-sex marriage lends itself to more children being raised without both their biological mother and biological father as their parental figures. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

"The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Every child deserves a mother and a father. You know why? Because it works. A 2010 Australian Institute of Family Studies report entitled Families then and now : 1980-2010 showed that 72 per cent—almost threequarters— of Australian families with children under the age of 18 years are intact biological families. That is about 2.1 million families in this country. We only need to look at other examples of where children have been robbed of this right to be raised by their mother and father, by their natural parents, to see what trauma it has caused them. When we look at the Aboriginal Australians who were removed from their parents, possibly with the best of intentions of the governments involved at the time, we can see the deep and lasting psychological scars that many Indigenous people still have to this day brought about by their removal through government policy.

Last year's Senate inquiry into the donor conception system in this nation exposed the angst felt by many persons.

One such person speaking publicly on this issue said:

"I was always really proud of being donor created— from time to time we do hear children of same-sex families say they are proud— but, once I had kids of my own, I realised what I had been deprived of. I have a fantastic relationship with my parents ... but things are missing; things that couldn't be provided—identity, heritage, history.

When I look in the mirror, I don't know who that person is."

When I read those words from someone who has been robbed of the right to a mother and father I wonder to myself if we can honestly be sure that as result of this bill we will not be hearing from children of same-sex marriages in the future saying that they have been deprived of a mother or a father and talking about being robbed of their identity, their heritage, their history and their right to a mother and father.

Marriage is all about family—it is all about children; it is all about creating a legal union between a man and a woman, providing permanence in their relationship and establishing a legal bond between those two people and their children. Yes, it is for the benefit of parents but more so for the benefit of children and, as a result, the benefit of society. The only way society can continue is through children. The only reason government is involved in the regulation of relationships through the Marriage Act is because procreation is the only way society can go on. If it were not for that fact, the government would not be playing in this field at all. This is a very important issue that has been neglected in this whole debate. The Labor Party need to come back to the Australian people with what they promised them before the 2010 election.

 George Christensen is the Federal Member for Dawson. 

Comments

[pk]

1.

Equating same sex parenting with children aboriginal stolen - wow the display of ignorance of both experiences is breath taking. Maybe this inability to see outside your own tiny world is the same which pins it's hopes on church going voters to sway popular consensus, good luck with that. bwwahahahahahahahaaaa.

[Nona Florat]

2.

There is overwhelming factual evidence that, wherever same-sex “marriage” or civil unions are legal, children are not only deprived of a right to a mother and a father, they are also subjected at school to compulsory indoctrination in homosexuality. This is a glaring violation of parental rights.

In kindergarten they are told a lie that some have “two mummies” or “two daddies”. In scientific fact every child who will ever be born has a mother and a father. Biology is immutable. While still in primary school, the “education” becomes more explicit, including pornographic images. Parents are powerless to withdraw their own children from this political and gravely damaging propaganda.

This is one important area where our democratic rights and freedoms are abolished. Another is that secular, as well as religious, marriage celebrants are compelled to officiate in same-sex “weddings”. So are leasers of venues, caterers, photographers, and all whom have a role in providing wedding services. It would not be enough to exempt ministers of religion. All people, including atheists, have a right of freedom of conscience. This is another inalienable right violated.

Moreover any who disagree are subjected to persecution. They are hounded, and many lose their employment. “Hate crime” legislation has been enacted in places where SSM is legal, wherein imprisonment is a penalty. The charges are “discrimination” and “homophobia”.

This abominable situation violates several Articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Articles 18, 19 and 26. A claim to same-sex “marriage” violates Article 26. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Proponents of SSM focus on a subjective and emotional approach. They will not participate in debate on a basis of objective evidence. Instead they deny a platform for any opposition, by repeating defamatory accusations of “bigotry” and “hatred”

Such bullies are to be clearly distinguished from homosexual persons, for whom there is zero evidence that the majority of their number want this legislation.

A homosexual opponent of SSM, Richard Waghorne, has written a very good article. In it he says “I have watched with growing irritation as principled opponents of gay marriage have put up with a stream of abuse for explaining their position".

richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

Same-sex couples are already free to celebrate their commitment on a social level, with the help of “gay friendly” services. This does not satisfy the activists, who want to legally impose same-sex “marriage”. Civil union legislation is just as dangerous for our freedom, as the consequences in places where this legislation is in place are identical.

Once it is legal, the activists have unprecedented power to abolish our cherished democracy, and supplant it with a dictatorial police state.

[Grumpyoldman2]

3.

When the Australian Constitution was drafted in the late 1800s and sent over from the UK for our acceptance without popular vote, the concept was that Christian Churches would not see it reducting their power and authority or express concern, if Marriage Laws were reserved to the soon to be Commonwealth. Marriage at that time was primarily a Church law matter, but with the option of Common Law marriage, and its connotations still open in the background. The perpetrators of out formal constitution, the British, certainly had their fill of Gays, Lesbians, Asexuals etc., living in every corner of the land, and apparantlyb saw no reason to update the definition of Marriage as it would apply in the colonies.

Marriage is still a matter for the Churches supported by the Commonwealth providing legal, judicial and centralised secretarial services. For the Commonwealth and all poitical parties (but one) to now vacillate and bend over to the GL&A community is courting problems from the non-GL&A community and rubbing the (Christian anyway) Church collective nose in it. For weak politicians to redefine a Church term under the guise of a conscience vote is hubris.

Equality is not a valid concern. A GL&A marriage is not equal in any way, particularly in the achievements of participation, except in the peace of mind that it may bring the participants. All the other benefits of Church marriage were available under the old Common Law, still available under Contract Law or if there is popular support and a politician with the will, another-named law specially written for their special needs.

Then I suppose the straights in the community may want it to apply to them if there are unforeseen side benefits.

[dante]

4.

I know DEMOCRACY is a difficult concept to understand and put into practice for those obsessed in imposing their views on politics and religion issues to everybody else. But it's the best system we have.

Labor has DEMOCRATICALLY elected to give a conscience vote to its elected members when a bill related to same-sex marriage is presented in Parliament. The PM has repeated her opposition to same-sex marriage. The Opposition, led by Mr Abbott who had aspired to the priesthood prior to entering politics, has forbidden its members an opportunity to express their personal views on this very private matter.

The dogmatic approach of those that oppose same-sex marriage reflects their inability to understand that in a democracy it's the will of the people that counts. It shows their level of confusion with regard to ‘personal freedom’ and the ‘nanny state’. On one hand they advocate freedom but are ready to support dogma and impose on others their personal will, faiths and convictions.

I personally do not support same-sex marriage (in fact I think the concept of ‘marriage’ is passé` and old-fashioned) but I understand that some people may want to celebrate the love they have for another person, who just happens to be of the same gender, in classical marriage. It’s their choice and I do not see why the state should prevent it when it’s accorded to others.

[dante]

5.

Why don't you declare your affiliation when posting? Your website states "Defending Life, Love, Faith and Family
in an increasingly hostile cultural environment". Increasingly hostile? I doubt if that is the assessment of many free-thinking and not indoctrinated readers. It is the hostility of groups like yours that cause miseries in the World, that makes people burn the sacred book of others and show no respect for anyone that does not share your point of views. You may need to learn a single word "tolerance".

[Jude]

6.

I would like to see a referendum on SSM asking "Do you think Australia should legalise SSM" - no flowery questions or leaning the question one way or the other. I think you would find an overwhelming NO. Marriage between 2 individuals must be consumated - do tell me how this is achieved between the same sex? I also believe that selfishly adopting children by males of the same sex or creating children with the sperm of a male for the selfish wants of a lesbian couple is nothing short of child abuse. The child didn't choose this and the vilification of these children in the future for nothing but self interest of these couples is absolutely disgraceful, and there will come a time when society sees it as such and there will be the same moves as there are today with "stolen" aboriginal children or the war children. These decisions were thought to be correct at the time and were thought to be in the best interest of the child. In whose best interest is it to allow SS couples to adopt children? Not the children as far as I can see. Just selfishness on part of these couples who can't be called parents. Parents are a male and a female.

[mick]

7.

Changes to same sex marriage do not require amendment of laws regarding same sex adoption. 'Slippery-slope' arguments are a paranoid fantasy.

Christensen really goes off-topic in this regard.

[John Mc]

8.

Changes to same sex marriage do not require amendment of laws regarding same sex adoption. 'Slippery-slope' arguments are a paranoid fantasy.

You don't think same-sex couples will ever ask for adoption?

[budgie smuggler]

9.

I'd like to ask George, is it okay for a hermaphrodite to marry the person they love?

[Nona Florat]

10.

I reaffirm my support for George Christensen.

The great classical writers of ancient (pre-Christian) civilisations (pagan Greece and Rome) would be highly amused about marriage being considered to be a product of Christianity.

In Greece homosexuality was socially acceptable, but considering marriage between persons of the same sex would have been deemed ludicrous. The crazed Roman emperor Nero went through a form of marriage with a freedman, for which he was strongly condemned by contemporary Romans – after the emperor’s death, of course.

If you had read my comments, you would be aware that factual evidence of SSM activists imposing their will and their beliefs on all citizens, once they have the power of legality, is irrefutable. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

In the UK a case has emerged of a journalist who received death threats for opposing an agenda regarding indoctrination of school children in homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/death-threats-against-uk-columnist-for-opposing-homosexualist-agenda?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d7553cc06-

Throughout history ideological zealots have imposed their will on nations. In some cases it has been motivated by religion, but more often by politics. Twentieth century history was marred by dictatorial secular governments committing atrocities resulting in the deaths of millions.

Same-sex “marriage” may be easily refuted on the basis of biological science and logic, without reference to religion. However all people (religious or otherwise) have a right to freedom of thought, speech and conscience.

If the issue is to be decided democratically, the only means of doing so would be a referendum. Incidentally wherever the people have been permitted to vote, the result has always been (to date without exception) for marriage between one man and one woman.

It is easy to understand why the SSM lobbyists do not want the people to have a voice.

In California the will of the people in a referendum was struck down by two judges. What does that say for democracy?

Infuriated lobbyists engaged in threats and actual violence against citizens who had supported Prop 8. They demonstrated their “tolerance” by hurling racial slurs at African Americans, even fellow-homosexuals. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/nov/08111212

Reason should be the basis for debate, not emotive invective.

[RossCO]

11.

Wait till all the loving newby's get divorced and done over by the CSA - you have so much to look forward to suckers!

[barry]

12.

By the time all this crap is sorted , humans should be just that tad more confused about life than they were previously.
And Gillard "craps" on.

Our "Esteemed Prime Minister"!!!

Or should I say "Honorable" !! isn't that the correct term.???

Our 1st female prime minister....is this an example of things to come ??

Well , the feminist cause just lost all it's respect from me.

Crap , Crap, and more Crap.

[A Facebook User]

13.

The decline in family values and the increase in broken homes and "lost" children is a direct result of our Governments bending over for small minded feminist groups resulting in a government "our government" pensions that encourages single mothers to abandon the children to a life of single parenting. C$A a government agency the makes the estranged fathers pay as well. It's about time a politician like yourself George actually stood up and said what most of know, the difference between right and wrong.Further more the whole system is biast and out of touch with todays reality, and now the gays want to do the same please people just because you can have kids dosn't mean you deserve them or should i say the, children who have no say in this don't deserve you.

[barry]

14.

How can someone who has no experience , and no interest , in family or marriage , stand on the soapbox , and tell people how they should run their lives.
As with no mandate for a carbon tax, where does she hold the qualifications for this.
The woman is a fraud , and a traitor.
And yet , the Political Correct bullshit supports this garbage every day.
Every day this woman remains Prime Minister , this country slides further and further in to the gutter.

Wake Up Australia.

You now have a country run by people who have no concept of life other than to rip the guts out of everything and everyone they can get their hands on .

Aided and abetted by a non-event bunch of brain dead idiots from Tasmania, who also know nothing about life other than hate.

As was stated by someone recently ..."Those on the left had better be prepared, for hell hath no fury like like good people who have consistently been used, abused, and deceived."

[.]

15.

Can this far right loon and obvious shoe in to a safe seat please specify what rights children have under the marriage act? Please cite sections of Acts and paragraphs of case law for convenience.

How many times has this no hoper spoken in Parliament? What has he done to shape the future of national defence? What contribution has he made to cutting the expenditure of the Commonwealth in a future coalition Government?

No. This won't do Christensen. He has to get severely depressed over two jokers and a cocker spaniel. The fact that our Navy has ONE seaworthy vessel and the Cth has 223 bn of debt on issue doesn't matter.

[liberal elitist]

16.

Reminder: same-sex couples can already adopt children or have them through a surrogacy or anonymous sperm donor arrangement, as I've pointed out on MH before.

[captain catholic]

17.

"How can someone who has no experience , and no interest , in family or marriage , stand on the soapbox , and tell people how they should run their lives.'
The Pope does it all the timie barry.