25th May, 2015
The Australian Christian Lobby has called for a non-binding national plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The call comes in the wake of the vote in Ireland in which a majority of voters – 62 per cent – voted to legalise same-sex marriage in that nation – a decision which the ACL described as "disappointing".
Lyle Shelton, the ACL’s managing director, said that while he respected the views of Prime Minister Tony Abbott
and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten that marriage was probably not an issue for a constitutional referendum, changing the definition of marriage in law was "a monumental and very divisive issue with big consequences" and people should have a say through a plebiscite before the issue goes back to parliament.
"Those seeking to change the definition of marriage always seem confident of public support," he said in a statement. "Let them put it to the test by asking for the peoples’ endorsement."
Mr Shelton, who earlier noted that $US16 million in funding had been provided to the ‘yes’ case in Ireland, said that if a plebiscite were to be held in Australia, "modest but equal" funding should be provided to both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ case and there should be a prohibition on international donations.
Australia has only ever held two national plebiscites – in 1916 and 1917 – and related to the introduction of conscription during World War I. Both returned no votes. Unlike a referendum – of which Australia has held 19 – a plebiscite is does not have any legal force.
Earlier Mr Shelton, in a statement released in response to the Irish vote, said Australia should not pass a law which would force millions of Australians to "pretend that a same-sex couple with children is the same thing as a mother and father with children".
"The redefining marriage movement in Ireland made a big effort to downplay the rights and interests of children, which ought to be at the centre of all public policy," he said.
Mr Shelton also said that because marriage "confers the right to form a family", if marriage were defined it would be very difficult to resist further changes which would allow "the exploitation of women through commercial surrogacy", noting that the only way the benefits of marriage equality can be provided to two males is through the reform of surrogacy laws allowing "open access" to donated womens’ eggs and the provision of "carrier wombs".
– DAVID ADAMS
