Marriage Bill–Democracy Denied

4 February 2013

Media Release

Marriage Bill – Democracy Denied

Right to Life supports the call of Family First for more time to hear submissions on the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment Bill. It is of the utmost importance that those 200 citizens who have made a written submission with a request to make an oral submission be heard.

It is deplorable that this highly controversial Bill is being rushed through the select Committee with unseemly haste. Mankind has upheld the institution of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman since the beginning of recorded civilisation  more that 12,000 years ago. Man has always recognised that man was made for woman and woman for man. Our ancestors who dwelt in caves knew this. Why is it then that there are amongst us those who would challenge this fundamental institution.

Why after 12,000 years, has the government  decided that  we should deal with unseemly haste, the private member’s Bill of Labour List Member of Parliament, Louisa Wall. Her  Bill seeks to redefine marriage to include marriage between two men and marriage between two women. This has never been marriage, it is not marriage and it will never ever be marriage.

It is evident that the government and the Labour caucus want this Bill dealt with quickly to minimise opposition from its core voters who oppose the redefinition of marriage. It is believed that the government does not want a fully informed public debate on this socially destructive Bill. There has been no debate on Parliament usurping authority to redefine the institution of marriage which was instituted by our Creator. We have yet to have a debate about legislating to deprive children of a mother or a father. There has been no debate about the promotion of the homosexual agenda in our schools. The media have abysmally failed the community by failing to encourage an informed public debate on this contentious and destructive Bill.

The government have a serious duty to be the champion and defender of marriage as being exclusively between one woman and one man. They have a duty to defend with determination and vigour the Marriage Act. It is deplorable that the government has fled the battlefield and left it to a back bench member of the opposition and her well meaning but misguided supporters. The government has shamefully abdicated its responsibility to defend families and the common good by defending the Marriage Act and strenuously opposing this destructive Bill. In doing so, they have failed society and future generations.

It is not too late for government to rally in defence of  traditional marriage, the source of new life and our future citizens and to oppose this attack on the family and society.

Ken Orr


Right to Life


  1. Rhona says

    I think that there is a very real danger that our attention will be diverted away from core life issues like abortion, and, especially, euthanasia, which has been repeatedly neglected by pro-life and pro-family organisations apart from Right to Life and Family Life International more recently.

    Please, let’s return to what should be the main focus of pro-life activism and deal with the threat of Maryan Street’s End of Life Choices Bill.

  2. Rhona says

    I am increasingly concerned that we are not asking hard questions of our dear evangelical friends like Messrs McCoskrie and Craig. Namely, the one about binding citizens referenda. I believe that this is akin to the argument within pro-life circles over Graham Capill and the Christian Heritage Party’s stance for capital punishment, which many Catholics saw at the time as much a part of the culture of death as abortion, euthanasia and human embryo research.

    Isn’t it, though? Binding citizens referenda may be tools of (dubious and short-term) expediency when it comes to homosexual and lesbian civil marriage, but what about euthanasia decriminalisation? Pro-lifers have legitimate concerns about the abuse of binding citizens referenda to decriminalise and maintain access to euthanasia and physician assisted killing and we should voice them. It’s all very well to support the Family First and Conservative Party campaigns against homosexual and lesbian marriage if one so wants, but it surely needs to be made clear that there is a line that we, as pro-lifers, cannot and will not cross.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *