- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 19 October 2004
Marriage Laws
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 69 of 73
| Next Item »
Page: 11532
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.21 p.m.]: The recent passage of legislation in the Federal Parliament enshrining marriage between a man and woman and excluding homosexual relationships is a great victory for the institution of marriage, the preservation of marriage, the sanctity of marriage and the wellbeing of our nation. It is a fitting response to the same-sex marriage lobby, which has been given more credence by some than its numbers and cause deserve and warrant. Marriage is universally and overwhelmingly understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman, and certainly not one between people of the same gender. This is what marriage has been understood to mean by all cultures, civilisations, societies, nationalities and religions since the beginning of recorded history. Marriage is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children" and "an act or ceremony establishing this union".
Traditional marriage is not something that is created by man-made law: it is a fundamental human institution created by the natural law. Marriage predates man-made laws and constitutions. It is an anthropological reality as well as a sociological reality. Laws relating to marriage merely recognise and regulate an institution that has existed for thousands of years. Our society will never accept same-sex relationships as a valid form of marriage, despite its purveyors trying to convince us otherwise and despite a few judges who, given half a chance, would cunningly misuse their judicial power in an endeavour to classify same-sex relationships as a form of marriage. Traditional marriage should hold a privileged place in public policy, and this Parliament should ensure that it stands always in an important and pivotal position. It is a public institution because it brings men and women together in a unique human relationship, including for the procreation of the human race. It provides an institution in which children can best be raised to maturity and adulthood.
Traditional marriage must be in a privileged and enshrined position for a whole variety of reasons. Numerous scientific studies establish beyond doubt that it creates the strongest foundations for the family, which is a fundamental anchor of our society. It is through traditional marriage that our society and nation are renewed. It provides the best environment for raising children. There is no evidence that children benefit from being raised in homosexual households. In fact, the evidence is that it is detrimental. Evidence shows that children raised by their biological married parents are far less likely to be abused or neglected than those raised in homosexual households. They are less likely to be prone to substance abuse and delinquency, and they are more likely to achieve academically. The evidence shows that same-sex relationships are far more susceptible to being unstable and more violent than traditional households. Those in homosexual relationships face a greater risk of overall health problems, suicide and attempted suicide. Studies show a far higher rate of sexual molestation of children in homosexual households than in heterosexual households.
According to the highly respected American Sociological Review, children raised in homosexual households are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. The truth is that the ideal environment for the raising of children is a household with a mother and father. Each parent will contribute to the children's development in a way that cannot be replicated. Both parents exercise a separate and unique social and biological influence on their children. The enshrining by the Federal Parliament of traditional marriage and the rejection of homosexual relationships as a valid marriage reflects the overwhelming view of the Australian people. Same-sex marriage overseas has been legalised only when parliaments have acted without approval through referendum of the electorate or through a few mischievous judges who have dishonestly misinterpreted marriage statutes to extend their meaning to include same-sex unions. In the United States, 38 States so far have rejected same-sex marriage, very often as a result of overwhelming voter direction by referendum. I hope that this Parliament always will exalt traditional marriage and reject any moves that serve to undermine marriage through the promotion by stealth or otherwise of same-sex unions.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:07 : Update this page