PROPOSALS to redefine marriage to cover same-sex relationships are “too important to be left up to the Government, social workers and courts” and should be put to the Australian people at a referendum.
Australian Family Association spokesman Luke McCormack said a question of such fundamental importance to society must be decided in this way.
“The redefinition of marriage to cover same-sex marriage would give the power to the State and other groups to decide a child’s parents rather than biology,” he said.
“Such an important decision has to be put to the people separately.
“Some time ago, (prime minister) Mr (Kevin) Rudd suggested such a referendum.
“He should now have the guts to call one.”
Prime Minister Rudd made an offer in June this year to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage if Tony Abbott refused to allow Coalition members a conscience vote on the issue.
Mr McCormack made the comments early last week after organising a protest outside Prime Minister Rudd’s Morningside electoral office about his pro-homosexual marriage stance.
Mr McCormack and other protestors carried placards with comments including: “…because Australia deserves a PM who supports natural marriage … Put Rudd Last” and “Children deserve a mother and father.”
Similar events were planned last week across Australia to highlight August 13 celebrations of National Marriage Day.
The date marked the anniversary of the 2004 bi-partisan amendment to federal marriage law.
The amendment continued the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman and was passed with support of both sides of politics nine years ago.
Meanwhile, the question of Mr Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s support for same-sex marriage was raised at a leaders’ debate last Sunday.
Mr Rudd used the event at the National Press Club to announce his government would within 100 days of regaining office introduce to parliament a bill to allow same-sex marriage.
Mr Rudd urged the coalition to dump its decision not to allow MPs a conscience vote on the issue as “a mark of decency”. Answering before Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott, whose homosexual sister Christine was in the audience, said it was an important issue, but the priority was living costs and jobs.
He said were the Coalition to win power it would be up to the party room in the next parliament to determine whether coalition MPs had a free vote.
Following Mr Abbott’s statement The Catholic Leader asked if as a Catholic he was showing leadership in the matter.
Mr Abbott through his office replied: “As you know, the Parliament voted on the matter in a decisive manner a few months ago.
“The Parliament’s decision was the same as the Coalition’s position – that marriage is between a man and a woman.
“As to what the Coalition may do on this issue beyond the next federal election, I have made it clear that it would ultimately be a matter for the party room at that time.
“My personal position is that I support the existing definition of marriage and would vote that way should the matter again come before the parliament.”