Light, not Heat
Now that it has been decided to have a voluntary postal “poll” instead of a compulsory plebiscite, may we finally have a reasoned discussion about same-sex marriage, please?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
So far, all we have heard in the public domain has been emotive rhetoric from both sides of the proposition, with little or no real information. What we have not heard is exactly what changes are actually proposed to the Marriage Act of 1961 as amended? The Act defines “marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”
Is it proposed to simply remove gender from this definition or will there be other changes? What are the practical implications of changes to the Marriage Act? For instance, what will it mean for inheritance law?
There has long been a glaring anomaly in inheritance law where a partner in a de facto heterosexual relationship is eligible to inherit whereas a partner in a homosexual relationship is not. Presumably, the proposed change to the Marriage Act would correct this anomaly, although it could just as easily be corrected by changing the inheritance law.
Other, in my view, more serious implications need to be considered. What will it mean for the rights of children? What are the implications for fostering/adoption? What are the implications for access to fertility services and surrogacy?
And what about divorce in same-sex marriages? When heterosexual parents separate the Family Court gives preference to the mother in custody decisions. In a homosexual relationship that has children, who is the mother?
It may be reliably anticipated that the proposed changes to the Marriage Act will result in a large increase in applications to the Family Court. Is it proposed to increase the funding for the Family Court in anticipation of the increased business?
My experience as a parent makes me believe that all children deserve and, indeed, require both a mother and a father. To deliberately bring a child into the world without the intention of them having one of these parents is, to my mind, irresponsible at best.
If the having of children by same-sex couples is to be legitimised, perhaps a compromise solution would be to require the couple to nominate a ‘god-mother’ or ‘god- father’, as appropriate, who is to spend a specified minimum amount of time with the child, to be administered by the Family Court along similar lines to the current custody guidelines.
Quite clearly, there are far-reaching implications of any change to the Marriage Act. We need to hear from lawyers about the legal implications and from child psychologists about the social implications, without the heat that has characterise the debate so far. For my part, I am not prepared to vote on this issue until these matters have been properly discussed in the public domain, so that we know what we are voting about.
John Wadsworth, Leeton.
A waste of money?
There has been so much wasted time and money of the subject of marriage equality. The real fact is no government can change God's law and this is what they are trying to do. How can they expect God to bless such a marriage is beyond me.
What about a minister or priest, a leader of their faith. How can he ask God to bless such a marriage? He would not have a job for long. Read God's Commandment as he is in charge, not the government.
"Thou shall not commit adultery". Think hard and wise on your vote. For whether or not we like it or not, we live under God's law, not man. Marriage was given at creation as a blessing to married couples - man and woman - so they could populate the world.
We are given the right to choose, but remember God loves the sinner, but he hates the sin. God bless you all.
Norma Boyle, Leeton.