ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 115, JUNE 2004

Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

To those who have had the blessing of living in an intact family it may seem incredible that the institution of marriage, which has existed for thousands of years, across cultures and religions, is now under threat of being re-defined out of existence. In Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada and several states of the US, homosexuals demand that their partnerships be given precisely the same status as marriage. The fact that homosexuals can obtain the economic benefits of a civil marriage through the making of Wills, business partnership agreements, next-of-kin documents and other financial arrangements does not satisfy them. They want to establish the myth that there is no difference between heterosexual unions - which have the potential of child-bearing - and homosexual unions which are of their nature sterile. Homosexuals also want the approval of society; maybe in their hearts they also yearn for the blessing of God and the Church.

There is no definition of marriage in the Australian Marriage Act 1961, the Family Law Act 1975 or in our Constitution. The issue of the meaning of marriage has been raised in Australia recently in a number of ways, among them the Family Court case of Kevin and Jennifer. (see Endeavour Forum Newsletter No. 114, April 2004). The Family Court said the words marriage and man in the Marriage Act have a contemporary, everyday meaning. Like the Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, words can mean whatever the Family Court says they mean. 

In an article in The Australian (27 April 2004), Liberal Senator Guy Barnett writes: "Australian same-sex couples may try to change the law in this country by travelling to a place such as Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium or Denmark and subsequently seeking judicial recognition in Australia of their marriage in an overseas jurisdiction. A notice of intent to do just this was given in February by Jason McCheyne and Adrian Tuazon from Melbourne, who had earlier flown to Canada to be married. 

 “Australia is a party to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages. One of the obligations is to recognise marriages validly entered into in foreign countries..... The Convention does not define marriage.....

  “....The great weakness for Australia is that existing arrangements mean the accepted definition of marriage is vulnerable to redefinition on the basis of what unions other countries choose to recognise as marriage. Wherever possible, Australian law should be made in Australia by Australians - and this law should prevail......I drafted a letter to the Prime Minister that was signed by 30 of my federal Coalition colleagues and it recommends federal amending legislation to achieve this objective....Marriage  is not a fashion to be updated". 

Marriage benefits families, society and specially children, for whom it   provides a nurturing environment that maximises their well-being. Prime Minister Howard has declared his in-principle support for protecting the status of marriage.  Write to Senator Barnett and the Prime Minister supporting an Amendment to the Marriage Act.

Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family

NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN