Would same-sex marriage create another stolen generation? Lyle Shelton, the ACL and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The Australian Christian Lobby, as expected, is campaigning hard against the legalisation of same-sex marriage. On Q & A this week, Lyle Shelton, ACL Managing Director, argued that recognising same-sex marriage would result in another stolen generation.

It’s strong language, so what should we make of it?

First, I think it gives us pause to reflect. The advent of surrogacy represents a dramatic historical shift in the practises of childbirth and it would be surprising if alongside the joy of people who otherwise couldn’t have children having them, there weren’t some negative repercussions. Moreover, the desire for children can be so strong that it can blind us to considering the negative consequences of surrogacy. Lyle’s comparison with the stolen generation reminds us that it is possible for a culture to be confident it is doing the right thing only to later discover it was terribly wrong.

Second, the comparison with the Stolen Generation fails almost to the point of being offensive. The stolen generations were part of an effort to produce cultural genocide. Children who were members of families, with brothers, sisters, parents, aunts, uncles, and communities in which they sensed they belonged, were chased down and forcibly removed against the will of their parents, their communities and themselves. Surrogacy is nothing like this. The birth of a child is planned between the surrogate and the parents-to-be, one of the parents-to-be is frequently a biological parent, the child is part of their family from the outset, and in many instances children remain in contact with the surrogate.

Third, the notion that marriage and parenting are linked is simply out of touch with the reality of life today. We live in a society where large numbers of children are born outside marriage and are raised in households where parents are not married. Some might like to think that marriage and parenting should be linked, and it may have been the case in the past, but that is not the world in which we live. If there are grounds for questioning the value of surrogacy let us have that debate but linking it to marriage is a bogus argument.

Finally, all this is part of a wider debate about whether the issue of same-sex marriage should be debated. I find Lyle Shalton’s and the ACL’s arguments against same-sex marriage piss-weak, and I do think that some people will feel aggrieved by what they have to say. It is simply impossible for the ACL to go around arguing that children are better off with male and female biological parents without people drawing the conclusion that they are saying that children raised in single parent homes, adoptive households or same-sex headed households are not worse off. People will find that offensive. But living in a modern liberal democracy doesn’t give you the right to not be offended. One of the foundational values of liberal democracy is freedom of speech. Indeed, it is one of the most important protections we have against the tyranny of the majority and the suppression of dissident thinking. While I found little to agree with in Lyle’s comments on Q &A, he made them in a calm, open and generous manner. Did his comments cause hurt? Were they offensive to some? Yes they were. Should they be suppressed? No they should not. I just wish he’d stop making them.

Thanks scott, I have found the original press release and it does use the Stolen Generation working – twice. Here is the text of it FYI

Media Release

Tuesday May 21, 2013

Rudd’s change on marriage sets up a new stolen generation

The Prime Minister who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another.

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said Kevin Rudd’s overnight change of mind on redefining marriage ignored the consequence of robbing children of their biological identity through same-sex surrogacy and other assisted reproductive technologies.

“What Kevin Rudd has failed to consider is that marriage is a compound right to form a family. Marriage is not just an affectionate relationship between two people regardless of gender.

“Marriage has always been about providing stability and biological identity for children wherever possible.

“What Mr Rudd has not considered is whether or not it is right for children to be taken through technology from their biological parent so that ‘married’ same-sex couples can fulfil their desires.”

Mr Shelton said Mr Rudd had also ignored the fact that this inevitably means parents will have their children taught the mechanics of homosexual sex in school sex education classes, something that would surely follow the redefinition of marriage.

“The so-called ‘marriage equality’ debate has been conducted by slogans without proper consideration of the consequences. Kevin Rudd is the latest to fall victim to shallow thinking on this issue,” Mr Shelton said.

“Mr Rudd’s announcement that he supports same sex marriage will be a huge disappointment for Christians and leaves their hopes for the preservation of marriage clearly with the Coalition and Christian-based minor parties.

“Any notion that same sex marriage can be legislated with protections for churches not to conduct the service is naive in the extreme,” said Mr Shelton.

“The UK legislation claiming to do the same was not even through the lower house when gay activists announced they had no intention of honouring that because in their view it allowed the church to discriminate against them.

“Any same sex marriage legislation will create vulnerabilities for the church and even more so for individual Christians who don’t have its institutional weight and legal identity,” Mr Shelton said.
“Wherever same sex marriage or equivalents have been legislated Christians have been pursued by activists. Christian businesses have been closed down, public servants and even pastors hauled into court and fined for exercising their conscience,” Mr Shelton said.

“No government has the right to create these vulnerabilities for the church-going twenty per cent of the population in order to allow the point two per cent who will take advantage of this to redefine marriage,” he said.

“Mr Rudd seems intent on burning bridges not only with colleagues, but with a constituency which had long given him the benefit of the doubt,” Mr Shelton said.

“Something is either true and demands our support, or not. The truth doesn’t change with popular opinion, to which he is now saying he seems to be responding.”

“If this is an attempt to wedge Julia Gillard, it will cost Mr Rudd the last of his following in the Christian Constituency,” Mr Shelton said.

His views on homosexuality and changing the definition of marriage are not in line with orthodox Christian teaching.

“All major Australian church denominations officially oppose same sex marriage and over 50 of Australia’s most prominent church and denominational leaders signed a statement against it in August 2011.”

Background

http://www.acl.org.au/2011/08/50-national-leaders-of-christian-churches-endorse-document-on-marriage/
http://www.acl.org.au/2011/12/19-senior-church-leaders-call-on-labor-not-to-change-marriage/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9825341/Government-powerless-to-protect-teachers-from-sack-over-gay-marriage.html

Media Contact: Katherine Spackman

0408 875 979