What irritates me about statements like this:

"It is fitting, therefore, that the state should support marriage and the family, not because of religious interests, but because society springs from marriage through the birth of children."

Is that for at least the last 30 years, the Australian birth rate has been below the replacement rate(1), so while our population been growing, it clearly has not sprung from children born from marriage but from immigration.

The point is that the argument against same sex marriage from the author is bunk - it is not supported by the facts in this country. Therefore it is not a valid argument against same sex marriage.

(1) see this: http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/images/adc-13.gif
from here:
http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp

I really struggle to understand this moral panic around same sex relationships.

The constant attempt to trivialise them by trying to define marriage as being for the production of children clearly only manages to demean all other marriages that don't. (Would he also try to stop the elderly from getting married on this basis? Or those who have no intention of having kids?)

It is very interesting to read about Iceland, which has one of the world's highest divorce rates but is one of the best societies for bringing up children. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland. I particularly like this quote: " 'The fact is that Icelanders don't stay in lousy relationships. They just leave.' And the reason they can do so is that society, starting with the parents and grandparents, does not stigmatise them for making that choice. "

The conclusion: marriage is not necessary for a stable society; it is society's attitude that matters far more.

Cory Bernadi clearly believes same sex relationships are no more than an economic convenience. On that basis alone, his argument can be easily dismissed as bogus.

The devaluing of heterosexual marriage has gradually come about by calling the husband and wife “a woman and her partner”, by labeling the father “absent” or “deadbeat”, by the removal of so many fathers from birth certificates etc.

I wonder have much gay marriages will be devalued.

Senator Bernadi packs a lot of lies into 500 words:

“The Rudd Government … say that same-sex couples are being discriminated against in current legislation because they do not have access to marital entitlements.”

Not true. The government’s position is that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex defacto (i.e. non-marital) couples.

“This first amendment bill changes 14 superannuation acts to include same-sex relationships. The “marital relationships” category will no longer exist.”

Not true. Marital relationships will still exist, but superannuation benefits will not depend on a couple being married. The benefits will flow to all marital and non-marital couples.

“According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report from last year, the advantages awarded to married couples should now be open to others - by a false appeal to “rights”, same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as married couples.”

Not true. The HREOC report specifically avoided marriage. The commissioners said:
“An opposite-sex couple does not have to marry to get those entitlements; nor should a same-sex couple have to marry. So, while same-sex marriage or civil unions could assist those couples who choose to formalise their relationship in that way, this Inquiry has focussed on ensuring that all couples have all the same rights whether or not they are married.”
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/SSSE_Report.pdf Page 18

One of the most galling humiliations suffered by same-sex-attracted people in this country is the fact that so many of our political leaders feel under no obligation to speak the truth when referring to us.

Is this guy what passes as talent in the Liberals these days? No wonder they are all worried.

One thing the Coalition clung to in refusing to remove discrimination against same sex couples in Commonwealth super was that it would cost too much - hundreds of millions, I seem to remember Minchin threatening. Now they are OUT OF POWER (deal with it, losers) and forced to deal with the issue, they want such rights extended even further to interdependent couples! Would that not cost MORE?! Logic and the Liberals - so rarely do they meet.....

What distinguishes 'marriage' from de facto relationships is the ceremony and public commitment, is it not? Straight people who live in de facto relationships do not bother with the ceremony, and therefore could justifiably be accused of degrading the status of marriage. They can have it and don't want it! They even have kids without getting married! THE SHAME! However, straight de factos currently have the same rights as bona fide married couples in all Commonwealth legislation.

That doesn't seem to stop Cory for a moment, who conveniently conflates 'real' marriage with the fake kind.

Current laws do not protect 'marriage' - they protect heterosexuality. Same-sex couples that make EVERY effort to ensure that their relationship is formalised and recognised, should the worst happen to one of them, have less rights that a straight couple who can't be bothered.

Just come out and say it Cory - in your opinion, same-sex couples are less worthy - of EVERYTHING - than straight couples. Period.

Marriage is originally a concept from religion and the supernatural. Since the time of Caesar, the Church has been the handmaiden of the state. Nowadays, religion still, despite declining numbers of active followers, enjoys still way too much power and influence in society.

I prefer to see public policy and the law being driven by objective considerations, rather than by a hidden agenda for stooges for supernatural cults.

People of society are aware that the major Churches are covertly and sometimes overtly lobbying against this change, not because of society's interests, but because of their supernatural belief that same-sex and de facto relationships are "sinful and corrupt lifestyles".

So raise your hands, stooges for Churches, are you keeping stum so that you can peddle your agenda.

Wow. I can only say the Liberals are in deep trouble.

The truth is that the ALP's changes do not attack marriage; they merely seek to replicate the rights heterosexual de facto couples enjoy.

Marriage is a way under capitalism to produce the next generation of wage slaves. It's why capitalist society and "apologists" (I use the word advisedly in relation to the Senator, because that implies some ability) propagandise ad naseum about heterosexual marriage and child rearing.

However the women's liberation movement in the 60s and 70s challenged the old shibboleths about a woman's role in society and openned the way for same sex relationships to flourish (coupled with the militant struggles of course of gays and lesbians for their own liberation.)

The ALP in the ACT had its gay marriage laws stopped by the ALP federally. The ALP feds share much of the Senator's views about the so called bedrock of marriage.

Me? I couldn't care what sex people are when they marry. One day it will be that Australia will have laws that allow same sex marriage. If two people love each other why shouldn't there be a ceremony to celebrate that, with legal consequences?

California already has such laws. I would guess twenty years for Australia.

In the meantime the Coalition holds up a socially useful change in the Senate and denies equality to same sex couples. Why? Because in the leadership battle Nelson's supporters are reactionaries who don't want to support the changes at all, and will use any arguments to defend their homophobic positions (including dependency relatonships, which are not relevant to this arguement.)

Nelson's failure to support this change immediately, while it may pander to the reactionaries in the Coalition, certainly isn't winning him any support in the wider elctorate. Keep up the pathetic work Liberals.

And no, I am not a member of the the alternative conservatives, the ALP. Just a liberal and libertarian. Cranky too about this nonsense article.

Grateful thanks to all contributors on this one. As I am about to embark on a Sociology unit entitled, "Individuals, Families and Households" and need other perspectives I was delighted to read all reactions. My own feeling is reform is long overdue. The Netherlands led the way for same sex union to be out in the open and contributing to healthy society. There are enough pressures on "working families" (sorry!) already.

The promotion of homosexuality is unhealthy for our nation. Marriage of same sex couples is as sick as marriage between a woman and a cat. We should be helping people caught up in this unnatural lifestyle not encouraging it. Why Australians tolerate this polictally correct and yet morally bankrupt rubbish is bewildering. The acceptance of defacto relationships (living in sin) has had a large affect on dulling peoples consciences. It is obvious that the secular humanist have succeeded in deluding so many. No wonder we have so many fatherless children, teenage drug use, abortion and crime. Now we want to add more perversion to our legal list and will be dumb enough to ask why we have so many problems in society.

Same sex marriage. Same sex nearly every day of the week...sex nearly on Monday, sex nearly on Tuesday, etc etc...boring..ho hum.

But really folks, if the parents are dedicated, and work together for the common good of the family unit they are forming (which is the most common reason why 'marriages' occur) it is a wonderful event in any persons life to experience a life partner, irrespective of the homo/hetero issue. I recently sat listening to an interstate couple who had been together for 63 years after meeting here in Darwin during WWII, and listened to their story of life together.

For this to translate into bringing child/children into the world, likewise is becoming a less common scenario these days.

Again the Marxist quote: (Groucho Marx I believe) who said - "Marriage is a great institution - but who wants to spend the rest of their life in an institution?" 15 to 20 years would see most first marriages done and dusted it appears. Most jurisdictions only sentence murderers to 12 yrs with good behaviour. Unholy Deadlock it may well become.

Prima facie the Icelandic perspective on marriage could have merit, but not within a Christian perspective. Who would want to endure how ever many years of misery with an incompatible, cruel, uncaring, wife/husband for the sake of religion? The Bible has its own words on that matter also, similarly the Koran. What of the Child Support Agency, Centrelink, all these harbingers of bad karma and their ilk?

History though, will be forever full of examples where people have endured the negatives of a bad relationship and the other member has then "seen the light" or welcomed a 'deity' into their life to be changed for the better. Does this then mean we all should wait, sometimes at great emotional and physical peril to ourselves and our children until that event transpires?

Nothing however, can compare to two parents, lovingly and selflessly contributing to bringing up their offspring - that is a known fact in just about every society upon the face of this fuzzy green planet.

Good on you Cory for standing up for marriage. Anyone can see that the latest Labor government legislation is not about ending discrimination but about granting the same special rights to homosexuals that married persons receive, otherwise they would address the legislation on a n inter-dependancy model like was done in South Australia.

Marriage is the bedrock institution, from the beginning of time, for the rearing of children. To quote a wise man:

"It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism, and one can wish all one might, but pigs don't fly and we can't change the course of nature."

Should the legislation be passed on an interdependcy model, this will affect all people on a pension.

People sharing accommodation will be seen as interdepent, accordingly their pension will be reduced and paid as a couple.

Albie Manton,
According to various happiness studies, people are generally happier when they are married.

According to various studies now conducted into divorced couples, they are generally no happier after their divorce then they were before their divorce.

If homosexual couples get married, then whoopee, but there is no scientifically acceptable reason to devalue marriage. Only a feminist would devalue marriage.

it's reassuring to see this moral and logical tripe get the reception it deserves.

Once upon a time, the labor party stood for something.

Now, anyone can buy them for a couple of hundred votes

The argument that marriage is solely for supporting families and child raising would make sense if you were calling for marriage to be restricted to those couples that had children.
Newly weds could be placed on a 24 month probation - if they do not fall pregnant within that period their marriage license automatically expires!
If your are using the child raising argument against same-sex marriage and are you are not calling for a similar scheme to the one I have outlined, then I would suggest your argument is just thinly disguised anti-gay discrimination.

BTW those of you that are arguing that marriage should keep with tradition, shouldn't we be enforcing the "Must be a virgin" rule?

Senator Bernardi, like other defenders of marriage as it currently stands, doesn't spell out what he doesn't want same-sex couples to have. He makes the argument for domestic co-dependency as a sop to gays and other unmarried couples (two sisters perhaps?) but he is vague to say the least about what government largesse and what sort of rights married couples should have that should never be bestowed on same-sex couples.

Does the Senator believe that one member of a same-sex couple should be forced to testify against the other in court? Should same-sex couples be prevented from adopting children? And what is wrong with amending superannuation legislation so the surviving member of a same-sex couple gets what his/her late partner wants?

Although we have a Marriage Act, as I said those defending so-called traditional marriage are often unclear about marriage and rather coy about what exactly should not be conceded to gay couples. Please spell it out.

Incidentally, legal parity between marriage as it is now and same-sex marriage shouldn't worry Bernardi and others like him. They can still believe their relationships are superior if they want to.

Ah, another South Australian. I'm convinced that South Australia is one of the strongest sources for this disease (in their political representatives)....no offence to South Australians... There seem to be a termites nest there.

Steel, I wouldn't be so hard on yourself. Over in NSW we have Fred Nile and the so-called Christian Democrats (who are neither). South Australia doesn't have a monopoly on homophobes.

One point I thought of is how the likes of Bernardi, Nile et al seem to want to minimise the number of gays. They say gays number as few as one or two percent of the population (and therefore their rights don't matter). And at the same time, they make out that same-sex marriage would mean the end of marriage, the death knell of civilisation etc.

You can't have it both ways. Either gays are numerically significant enough to pose a threat or they are negligible in numbers and therefore same-sex marriage would not make one iota of difference to marriage per se.

I'd also like to know how many heterosexuals would refuse to get married if same-sex marriage was legislated. That would be a real test of the effects of same-sex marriage.

The Wikipedia site on Corey Bernadi makes interesting reading, it seems Malcolm Turnbull and other liberal MPs distance themselves from him!

The 'institution' of marriage was already destroyed by historical divorce laws, secular marriages (and even interracial marriage according to the religious), which is extremely prevalent in our society including christians (that irony of course will be lost on most of them)..... I wouldn't expect a logical or rational argument from these people. How a gay couple expressing their love for one another and getting married tangibly affects anyone (especially when divorce has been okay'ed) has never been explained.

> The Rudd Government wants us to accept a number of conclusions at face
> value...Same-sex relationships are not the same as marital
> relationships and to treat them the same is to suspend common sense.

Which boils down to "they're begging the question because they're wrong" and puts paid to any pretense the senator had to reasoned argument.

Government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and limit itself to regulating partnerships and contracts (of whatever arrangement) as it does already.

Thanks for the tip on the Wikipedia entry, Kipp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Bernardi

With Bernadi retiring from the Senate tomorrow, I doubt that he'll be holding forth on relationship recognition much more.

So Senator Bernardi is retiring. What a shame because I didn't really get to know him. He seems like the thinking person's homophobe. He concedes gays should have some type of relationship recognition through the Coalition's proposed "domestic co-dependency" initiative but, as I said, doesn't explicitly say what benefits married couples should receive and gay couples should be denied.

It is a mystery to me how amending the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage would cause marriage to collapse. The only way it could would be if heterosexuals suddenly opted for same-sex marriage en masse. First of all, if they did that would be their choice (we live under capitalism not communism and so people do have choices).

Secondly, most people are heterosexual not through their own choice but because of their sexual orientation. And so they are not likely to take up the opportunity to marry someone of their own sex. Only gay people would do that.

Finally, the Coalition's proposal and same-sex marriage legislation are not mutually exclusive. How about both? But of course Bernardi and his colleagues are simply using "domestic co-dependency" to hide their anti-gay bigotry. At least Fred Nile here and Fred Phelps in the US are more honest.

I'm not sure where you all have gotten your research on Senator Bernardi but he did not retire at the last election. He is, in fact, only 38 years old, and was just re-elected for another eight years in the number one ticket spot in South Australia.

Thanks for the correction, Cheryl

That will teach me to check everything I read in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cory_Bernardi&diff=222917357&oldid=220988620