Sunrise marriage debate gets personal
Same-sex marriage advocate Dr Kerryn Phelps and Australian Christian Lobby’s (ACL) Jim Wallace went head to head in a debate held by Channel 7’s Sunrise program as part of the ‘I Do’ campaign by Marie Claire and GetUp!
Phelps was quick to hit out at Wallace’s claim that the European Human Rights Court stated that marriage equality is not a human right.
“You are misquoting the European Court of Human Rights just like you misquote the Bible consistently.
“The European Court of Human Rights, what they said was this was an issue to be handed to the sovereign nations of Europe.
“If you are truly representative of Christians, why are you not protecting the rights of children who are being raised by same-sex couples whose parents do not have the right to marry currently?”
Wallace also launched into an attack against Channel 7 and Sunrise accusing the program of bias which was defended by host David Koch.
“Don’t slag us, give us your view. What’s wrong with same-sex marriage?” Koch said.
Wallace again added that his view was marriage is between a man and a woman because of children.
“I am accusing 7 and Sunrise of getting into this campaign as a foreign affairs and news show …you have not followed up on this issue you have come on as an activist,” he said.
“First of all the issue is that marriage is about children, it’s about enshrining in our legislation that marriage is between a man and a woman because of children, because motherhood and fatherhood are more important.”
This debate coincided with rallies in Melbourne and Sydney where marriage equality activists outnumbered anti-gay activists.
- Tags: Blaze, Channel 7, David Koch, Dr Kerryn Phelps, Jim Wallace, marriage-equality, MCV, Queensland Pride, Same-sex Marriage, Sunrise, SX
About the Author
Alex Dunkin
"Tall, dark and handsome", and a borderline coffee addict. Grew up in country South Australia prior to travelling and living overseas and then returning to the state to undertake university degrees in journalism and international studies with a focus on the Italian language. Constantly writing new material, both journalistic and creative, with a couple of recent awards under his belt including the youth prize in the New Mardi Gras literature prize.
Comments (16)
I live in the UK, not thats of any importance, however hopefully soon, we will have the right to be able to marry...not and i quote a civil partnership...its simple not the same, and not equal! I hope for Australians;,if she would to marry her girlfriend,and him marry his boyfriend..I hope your right comes true,as its nice to feel equal! If Denmark can do it, hopefully the UK,then hopefully Australia
Jim Wallace.
From Australian Armed Forces Brigadier to...this.
I bet some of of his ex-army colleages are having a good old laugh. The ACL is hardly career advancement.
Terry K.... not sure too many members of the ADF would laugh at a former commander of the SAS regiment.... even thouse who don't agree with this views. Just saying....
Na Tom. Jim-boy missed the boat. He'd be better off in the navy where he could put the queer ones over his knee for a good ol' smack!
Here, Here cynic! I don't think they give us a second thought when doing rootie-tootie with their respective husbands and wives tonight.
Just ONE question kochie, so kevin 07, maaaateee. How much is getup paying channel 7 to run this gay marriage campaign???? Smacks of a grubby money hungry little exercise and exploitation of gays for nothing more than ratings & money. A disgrace.
TerraMatt, what are you saying? That "niche" marriage providers continue to refuse us marriage should one day it come in? Where's the equality in that?
Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying Stuart. It's arguable that Section 116 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia will prevent changes to the Marriage Act that forces any religious organisation to marry against their religious lore / tenets / beliefs. And there is no equality in that. It might be the case that individual parishes (etc) might choose to offer marriage services to SSA couples, but we'll have to see. Full and frank equality would (most likely) require constitutional change in addition to massive and substantial change in the Vatican, Canterbury, Mecca et al.
TerraMatt, it's crazy. Now we're second-class citizens. Next, we'll be "equal" with second-class marriage. I say, you only live once and it won't do!
Those who wish to marry under a regime that does NOT allow equality of access can go to the 'niche' providers - the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (Anglican…) are the two biggest. The rest of us need to keep lobbying our elected representatives to ensure that ALL Australians have equal access to Federal legislation - including the Marriage Act. While marriage is not covered by them, feel free to mention the perceived and stated primacy of (various State and Federal) Equal Opportunity Acts and the regularity with which other acts of parliament(s) get changed in order to not breach them.
Just like there are "Bears" and "Dykes on Bikes", there are queer nudists and I'm sick of being told I can't be nude because of the "children".
Hmm, easy to talk when your not the one being discriminated against. If you ask me the entire instutution of marrage should be abbolished, because a. the devorse rate is just crazy, and b. nobody truely believes in marrage any more. if you want to be fair, then take it away, if one can't have it then nobody should have it. This howl debate is like to children fighting over candy, if they can't share take it away.
Then there is the token point of children, my God, I know gay parents and they are doing a great job in raising there children, better than most hetrosexual people. Stop using children as a wepon for your own hateful agendas.
Lastly I just want to say as a Christian I am ashamed of what the ACL stand for and appoled at their coments, if this is what it means to be a Christain then I am sorry, I am distincing my self from the church, because the church has lost its true purpose, and how they should behave, they should be an example, not force their views onto others.
Being able to stand infront of your family and friends and conves your love to your partner infront of them and making it leagal, IS A HUMAN RIGHT, any one that says other wise is breaching the discrimination act in my eyes.
Frankly, I'm over this claim that the same-sex marriage issue is "about children". What a spurious argument! The value given to a child has nothing to do with the gender or degree of separation of carer from child, only to do with the love and care shown by its guardians. This includes parents of either gender, married or not, grandparents, aunts, foster carers, adoptive parents..... There is nothing in this that pertains to the marriage of parents or guardians. Some might even argue that carers who are not necessarily the biological parents of a child place far greater value on children given that they are often willing to go to extraordinary lengths to have them and raise them as their own.
Secondly, I don't understand the resistance to allowing adult couples of any persuasion to marry. My marriage is not affected in any way by anyone else's, as nobody else's divorce has any impact on my marriage, or anyone's decision to be in a defacto relationship. That denying a group of our countrymen the recognition of their commitment, or relegating it to a "second class" position, should still be deemed appropriate staggers me. I have not heard a single coherent argument to support this rigid stance.
What is a human right? I love my partner and I want to marry her
but I can't? Why? Please then explain Philip? I feel excluded
by mainstream culture yet we live together have children
and both work and pay tax? Not sure how it isn't discrimination?
How would u solve this issue then?
What a disappointing debate. Wallace correctly raised what the European Court of Human Rights had determined and Phelps, incorrectly, insisted he's wrong. This is clearly not an issue of a basic 'human right'. The ECHR has ruled that "such marriage are not a right under the European Convention of Human Rights" and "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage". Why does this whole debate continually revolve around the terms "equality" and "rights" - both of these terms are incorrect, and if the gay lobby wants gay marriage instituted in Australia, surely they must have some better argument than this?
The personal might've been when Wallace calle Phelps (a known Jew) a nazi...