Aussie ‘Greens’ push for polyamory, a consequence of redefining marriage

Originally published in Australian Christian Lobby

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is concerned by a renewed push by Greens party activists to legalise polyamorous marriages.

“There is no doubt that a growing number of members of the Greens Party take its ‘marriage for all’ policy to mean exactly that,” said ACL’s Managing Director Jim Wallace.

- Advertisement -

The recent establishment of the Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) – headed up by Greens activists Brigitte Garozzo, Timothy Scriven and Kieran Adair – should send a loud warning to parliamentarians, particularly in NSW and SA, of the consequences of redefining marriage, Mr Wallace said.

During last year’s same-sex marriage debate, ACL warned that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to a push for polygamous or polyamorous ‘marriage equality’ in Australia.

“Once you cross the threshold of redefining marriage away from its natural meaning, you cannot in all honesty hope to stop further redefinition,” said Mr Wallace.

“You either keep marriage as nature defines it or lose it.”

Greens politicians and Labor supporters of same-sex marriage continue downplaying calls from even Greens officials such as ACT Greens convenor Simon Copeland and the poly community for ‘marriage equality’ to be extended beyond two people.

However, in May 2012 former High Court Justice Michael Kirby told a Senate inquiry that if same-sex marriage is passed, there could be further redefinitions in the future.

“The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the questions of equality for homosexual people,” Justice Kirby said.

“There may be in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament I suggest, is that you take matters step by step,” he said.

“The Greens’ tactic is always to try and legislate their radical social policies incrementally by fatigue, but it is obvious that the party’s high profile championing of the redefinition of marriage is not limited to same-sex marriage.” Mr Wallace said.

“We urge Australian legislators to take serious consideration of the consequences of redefining marriage and to question the logic and integrity of calls for so-called ‘marriage equality’.”

PAL has established an on-line petition calling on the Australian Parliament to provide marriage equality for poly relationships.

Mr Wallace said it was significant that Federal Court judge Justice Jane Jagot found last month that marriage between a man and a woman was not a breach of state sex discrimination legislation.

“There cannot be discrimination by reason of the sex of a person because in all cases, the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same,” she said in issuing a ruling against a gay man who was claiming discrimination.

“Hence, a man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman as defined.”

Mr Wallace said: “The ruling made a nonsense of the slogan “marriage equality” because it showed that it is not discrimination to treat different things differently, and blows away the lie that there is any unreasonable discrimination in entitlement or treatment of same-sex couples.”


  1. Hugh G Wetmore

    Agreed – by allowing same-sex unions (I will never say ‘marriage’) we open the way for anything to be called “marriage”. Ask your electrician to fit two male plugs together. This is ‘unnatural’ if anything is. The best way to show Christian love to homosexuals is to help them control their sexual urges and re-direct them the natural way. There are enough examples of this happening, even outside Christian contexts, to make it a worthwhile goal. This isn’t only a ‘gay’ thing. Everyone who trusts Christ need ‘rehabilitation’ from their previous sinful habits.

  2. Christopher Blackwell

    Natural meaning, what natural meaning. We don’t even now when the concept of marriage became a social contract that it is now. In Biblical times it was a property contract from father to husband with the woman passing from ownership of her father to ownership of her husband.

    As Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, marriage was still strictly a civil matter between families, still essentially a matter of property transfer The church still did not have a ceremony for it. Later only the nobles got marriages in the church as it was far too costly for the ordinary people. Ordinary people jumped the broom in front of witnesses in many Christian countries and were hand-fasted.

    As late as the eighteen hundreds a woman, in most Christian countries, had no personal legal rights, not even to her children, nor to any property that she bought into the marriage. Herself, her property and her children legally belong only to her husband.

    Marriage as we see it now is modern interpretation. It has been redefined many times over in the past. In some people linage was from the mother, not the father and women owned all the property. Note in the Bible most men had several wives. There is evidence that even within Christianity that there were marriage ceremony for noblemen to men even as late as the middle ages.

    While Christians may chose to define what they consider marriage and family to be for themselves, they have no right to define it ever everyone else. There is no natural definition of marriage.

    • Antoinette Keyser

      Very well said Christopher! While I do not particularly agree with the concept of polyamory, simply because I am a romantic at heart and like the concept of “two people for each other for life until death do them part”, and for that reason also feel that it could cause unnecessary emotional affliction and hurt within a marriage relationship, I do feel that it is inappropriate to prescribe to people who and how they should love. If several people want enter into a polyamorous marriage they have their reasons, and it’s their business. And I have nothing whatsoever against Gay marriages because when two people love each other, who am I to state that it is “unnatural”. As you have appropriately stated: there is no “natural definition” of marriage.

      • Like Frank Sinatra it seems that man has always liked to “do it my way”. In the Bible God says one thing and people and cultures often practice another. In the first chapter of the Bible God makes it clear that he created people “in the image of God….male and female…” — Genesis 1:27. In the next chapter He describes marriage, saying “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” – Genesis 2:24

        In the New Testament God brings further revelation about the purpose of marriage –it is meant to represent His relationship with His Church: “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. :This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.’ ” — Ephesians 5:31,32

        Man and culture, whom God have given free will, may see ‘marriage’ as a business deal, as a free-for-all expression of love between whoever.

        The Bible has much more to say on marriage. And for anyone who loves God and believes that He speaks to us through Scripture, it is not difficult to see God’s high and sacred regard for marriage and what he desires from us regarding marriage. In the first Book of the Bible God declares His will for marriage between a man and a woman. In the last Book (Revelation 19) Jesus describes a future wedding feast between Himself and His bride (all who have received Christ).

        • Antoinette Keyser

          @ Andre Viljoen:
          The creation myth you refer to is but one of two creation myths in in your bible. Furthermore, if you would honestly attempt reading the bible correctly, you would realize that the first eleven chapters in it are but myth, with no real traceable history attached to them. Similar myths exist in almost every other existing religion, and each was has its origin in Paganism. Biblical history actually began with Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sara). Your God’s “prescription “ in the book of Genesis regarding “marriage” is rendered invalid by that very fact.
          With reference to your mentioning of Gen 1:27 (that we were created as MALE AND FEMALE in a Divine Image, it also becomes clear that your bible contradicts itself, because if we, as male and female, are a creation “in the image of God”, why does he present himself in the masculine only? If anything, that would simply prove that my Goddess, as the Wife of Yahweh, has been shamelessly edited from the bible.
          As a Pagan, I do not perceive a handfasting as a “business deal”. To me the very act of joining together two people in that way is a culmination of their love for each other. A “free for all” is the last thought that would come to my mind.
          Finally, Jesus could not have described anything in the book of Revelations, since he was not the author… the author was John the Apostle.