Children at risk of negative messages in marriage equality plebiscite, Senate told
|
Version 0 of 1. The children of parents in same-sex relationships face being “bombarded” with anti-same-sex marriage messages if the issue went to a popular vote, a Senate committee investigating how such a vote might be held has been told. While those opposed to same-sex marriage might be hurt that people did not agree with them, it could not compare to the suffering of those children and teenagers, the Nationals’ Trevor Khan told the legal and constitutional affairs committee on Thursday evening. Related: Marriage equality will remove prejudice, not promote conflict, says Liberal MP “For teenage LGBTI youth going through the decision of whether to come out and trying to figure out what their sex is, to be bombarded over what would be a period of months of this campaign is potentially extremely destructive,” Khan said. The majority of legal and policy experts told the committee a plebiscite on the issue was unnecessary because federal parliament already had the power under the constitution to legislate for marriage equality. The deputy director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Associate Professor Paula Gerber, said that legislating to allow for same-sex marriage would not result in the same level of sustained and public debate that would occur through holding a popular vote. The centre was greatly concerned by the impact campaigning ahead of a plebiscite might have on children raised by LGBTI couples, and LGBTI youth generally. “To have a publicly sanctioned campaign that allows vitriol against these two groups of children is likely to cause them significant harm,” Gerber said. “We saw the sort of dialogue that ensued from the Gayby Baby film that ensued in NSW, and for that to be replicated on a national level is not going to be in the best interest of children and for that reason a plebiscite on the issue should not be held.” Related: Experts put 'strong public health case for marriage equality' to all MPs By contrast, children were unlikely to tune into parliamentary debates, she said. Convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Dr Justin Koonan, said about two-thirds of Australians appeared to be in support of the issue going to a public vote. “But the point we want to make is that 70% of of LGBTI people don’t want this to go to a public vote, because we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks what happens when something like the Gayby Baby scenario becomes public, when newspaper columnists are telling 12-year-olds that their families are not normal.” But the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton, told the committee parliaments had already given the issue of same-sex marriage a “pretty good go” yet had failed to legislate for it. While the lobby did not support changing the law to allow for same-sex marriage, they would welcome a compulsory plebiscite, he said. Those opposed to same-sex marriage should not be censored in the lead-up to the vote, he added, or accused of being homophobic. “We need to break shackles of political correctness around the debate,” Shelton said. “Many are fearful they will be labelled as bigots. This is not a debate against people or individuals. It’s a debate about what marriage is, what family structure is, and what is in the interest of children. There should be freedom in the discussion to advocate for this side of the debate.” Dr David Phillips, from Family Voice Australia, said there was pressure of a “most disrespectful nature” towards those who held a traditional view of marriage to change their views. Australian Catholic Bishops Conference public policy director, Jeremy Stuparich, said allowing same-sex marriage would lead to “profound social change” that would “alter the character of the community”. For this reason, the best option for considering the matter would be to go to a plebiscite, he said. But Australian Psychological Society member, Dr Liz Short, said a plebiscite would present significant risks to the health and wellbeing of some members of society. “Human rights and equal opportunity issues shouldn’t be a matter for popular vote,” Short said. “Treating people differently and less advantageously in laws on the basis of their gender of sexuality is discrimination and places them unfairly as second class citizens.” Minority rights should not be decided by a majority vote, especially from voters who did not stand to lose anything from the decision, she said. To allocate public funds towards such a debate and vote was unnecessary when there was an option to legislate for change, she said. Greens senator, Janet Rice, won support to refer the issue of a same-sex marriage plebiscite to the legal and constitutional affairs committee in August. The committee is also examining how to frame a potential plebiscite question, and funding of yes and no vote campaigns. The committee will also hear from constitutional law experts, and representatives from the Australian Electoral Commission, later on Thursday night. |