The Same-Sex Marriage Pandora’s Box

Liberal Senate Leader Eric Abetz said today that allowing same sex marriage will open-up a Pandora’s Box, leading to other possibilities such as polyamorous relationship, i.e. a relationship involving multiple consenting partners. While proponents of this so-called “Marriage Equality” movement often cite discrimination as their prime motivation, the discrimination tide has well and truly been reversed. In the lead-up to the recent Irish referendum on same-sex marriage, proponents of traditional marriage were commonly vilified and victimised. Here in Australia, a Federal Government program called the Safe Schools Program is being rolled out across Australian schools. Funded to the tune of $8m, this program was an initiative of Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria, in the words of former Education Minister Bill Shorten, to “stamp out bullying in schools, which in particular, focused on homophobia”. Since then, the program has been used to impose a homosexual agenda on our children. Children who are uncomfortable with the activities are often ridiculed and bullied. So much for stamping out bullying in schools!

In the context of this tide reversal, Senator Abetz needs to be congratulated for daring to speak his mind on a public platform. There are many decent men and women in our society who, while supporting the traditional definition of marriage, treat all others equally, regardless of ethnicity, religion, physical conditions and indeed sexual orientation. Constantly been shouted down by the very vocal proponents of the same-sex marriage movement, these decent men and women are being silenced. It is time we speak up – if not in direct support of traditional marriage, at least in support of those like Senator Abetz who speak up on our behalf.

The amendment to the Marriage Act being proposed is to change the definition of marriage from that between “a man and a woman” to that between “two persons”. In light of what Senator Abetz’s has said, how certain are we that this will not be amended in the future to between “two or more persons”? In its current form, the Marriage Act specifically outlaws marriage between close kin such as siblings and between a parent and a child. How certain are we that these provisions will not be removed in the future? After all, future proponents of marriage between close kin can easily mount the same argument about discrimination against people who “genuinely love each other”. In fact, they can even use the same rallying call of “Marriage Equality”!

Like the so-called “Safe School” program, the rallying call of “Marriage Equality” is a term deceptively chosen to gain political traction. Currently in Australia, a man or woman enjoys full equality under the law to marry any member of the opposite sex of his/her choosing. Under our laws, homosexual couples enjoy the same rights as heterogeneous couples in provisions after breakup, in inheritance matters, etc. We have laws that prohibits discrimination against minorities of all forms, be it skin colour, religious beliefs, physical conditions or indeed sexual orientation. You see, the argument before us is not about equality. As Perth Archbishop Tim Costelloe said recently in an open letter, the argument before us “is not about condemnation, discrimination or rejection. It is about the nature of marriage … It is also about the question of what is appropriate for governments to decide and what is, or should be, beyond the bounds of their competence.” The Archbishop went on to say that marriage is “an institution which formalises, supports and strengthens the relationship between a man and a woman” and there is “a fundamental link between marriage and the creation and sustaining of a family which makes the institution of marriage a fundamental building block of our society.” (Click here to download a copy of the Archbishop’s letter.)

If you would like to send Senator Abetz your support, his contacts are available on his Parliamentary contact page. If you would like to contact your Senators and MPs to voice your support for traditional marriage, their contacts are also available on the Parliamentary web page.



“I believe that [public opinion will turn] when the community is informed on the actual impact that it is in fact having elsewhere, where people’s rights are completely restricted in places like Canada and other countries where, if you are opposed to gay marriage, all of a sudden you are brought before the courts.”

“The regrettable fact is that the media always will report things like the Pitcairn Island parliament of 48 people voting in favour of gay marriage, but not reporting the Austrian parliament voting 110-26 against, and that is the one-way traffic that the Australian people are starting to resent.”

“It is an institution that, if you change its definition, you simply open a Pandora’s box and we are witnessing that in some of the European countries.”

Senator Eric Abetz, 2 Jul 2015

4 Responses to The Same-Sex Marriage Pandora’s Box

  1. The Catholic Bishops of Australia recently issued a booklet to students and parents of all Catholic schools entitled “Don’t Mess with Marriage”. While arguing for the reasons for the definition of marriage not be changed; it also states in no uncertain term that “every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This includes those who experience same-sex attraction. They must be treated with respect, sensitivity, and love”. Last week, Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome resented the distribution of the booklet saying, “The booklet says to gay students in Catholic schools that their sexuality is wrong” and “any teacher who exposes vulnerable children to such damaging messages not only violates their duty of care but is a danger to students”. As The Australian’s columnist Angela Shanahan pointed out in the Weekend Australian today, “Croome is saying the classic Judeo-Christian view on this matter, which is contained in the booklet and enshrined in the law, is simply prejudiced and children should not be taught these things. So what will happen if same-sex marriage becomes legal? Will Croome demand schools cease to teach Catholic precepts? … Suppressing freedom of religion and, with it, freedom of thought is the endgame of the marriage equality putsch. There are hundreds of examples of this all over the world: people involved in religious education, religiously based adoption agencies and religious ministry have been sacked, fined and had their views and work suppressed by anti-discrimination laws.” This is what at stake in the current debate on Same Sex Marriage – the fundamental right of our church leaders to pass on Christian teachings.

    (For a copy of the booklet “Don’t Mess With Marriage”, click here.)

  2. When Australian Parliament re-sits on 11 Aug 2015, a cross-party bill will be introduced to change the Marriage Act and legalise same-sex marriage. Please pray; and write to your local Federal MP and State Senators to guard against this latest attempt to undermine the institution of marriage in Australia.

  3. This is perhaps what Senator Abetz was talking about:

    “Polyamory is all about love … It’s not about casual sex, swinging or cheating, rather it is about having loving, honest, deeply committed relationship … I know people in poly families and it works well. In a practical sense it means there is an extra adult in the relationship … If we wanted to get married in future, the Constitution would need to be changed again, from two to many …”

    If these people would like to get married one day, should we “discriminate” them? What about our traditional taboo to marriages between siblings and parent-child? In its current form, the Marriage Act in Australia specifically outlaws such marriages. Aren’t we in fact “discriminating” against these people who genuinely love each other but is not allowed to call their relationships “marriages”? You see, this debate before us is not about discrimination or human rights, but is about how we would like marriage to be defined. It is important anyone who subscribe to the traditional Judeo-Christian view on this matter be allowed to freely voice their opinions, free from any form of intimidation and unfair characterisation.