Australian Poll prefers Mum & Dad to Gay Parents
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
“Our first question benchmarks the question from Sexton 2011 and finds the same high level of support for the fundamental rights of the child: 76% of Australians agree that “where possible, as a society, we should try to ensure that children are raised by their own mother and father”.
“We get the same figure, 76%, in response to our question about marriage as a compound right: whether people agree “that the right to marry includes the right to found a family”.
“Significantly, that means a quarter of Australians (24%) do not understand that the right to marry includes the right to found a family, as defined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16. That means they do not understand that laws for homosexual marriage include the right for two men to create a family by surrogacy or adoption – with the consequence that any state laws which presently prohibit same-sex adoption or surrogacy will be overturned.
“If every fourth Australian fails to understand that gay marriage, gay adoption and gay surrogacy are a package deal, then the public does not know what it is buying when it signs up to laws for gay marriage”, Dr van Gend said.
“A second point of confusion uncovered by our survey, and of concern for the quality of public thinking on this issue, is that almost a third of Australians (30%) do not understand that there is a logical incompatibility between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims”.
The 1242 respondents were asked this question:
Which of these two conflicting claims do you think is more important?
· “A child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad.”
· “Two men should have the right to marry and create a family.”
· Both equally important.
· Don't know.
“A third of Australians in our survey chose “both”, which is not a coherent option” Dr van Gend said. “We cannot defend a child's right to both a mum and a dad if at the same time we are defending the right of two men to marry and create a motherless family. Something has to give.
“Our first question benchmarks the question from Sexton 2011 and finds the same high level of support for the fundamental rights of the child: 76% of Australians agree that “where possible, as a society, we should try to ensure that children are raised by their own mother and father”.
“We get the same figure, 76%, in response to our question about marriage as a compound right: whether people agree “that the right to marry includes the right to found a family”.
“Significantly, that means a quarter of Australians (24%) do not understand that the right to marry includes the right to found a family, as defined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16. That means they do not understand that laws for homosexual marriage include the right for two men to create a family by surrogacy or adoption – with the consequence that any state laws which presently prohibit same-sex adoption or surrogacy will be overturned.
“If every fourth Australian fails to understand that gay marriage, gay adoption and gay surrogacy are a package deal, then the public does not know what it is buying when it signs up to laws for gay marriage”, Dr van Gend said.
“A second point of confusion uncovered by our survey, and of concern for the quality of public thinking on this issue, is that almost a third of Australians (30%) do not understand that there is a logical incompatibility between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims”.
The 1242 respondents were asked this question:
Which of these two conflicting claims do you think is more important?
· “A child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad.”
· “Two men should have the right to marry and create a family.”
· Both equally important.
· Don't know.
“A third of Australians in our survey chose “both”, which is not a coherent option” Dr van Gend said. “We cannot defend a child's right to both a mum and a dad if at the same time we are defending the right of two men to marry and create a motherless family. Something has to give.
UNAVOIDABLE CHOICE
“Of the 65% of Australians who did understand that we are forced to choose between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims, it is encouraging to see that the vast majority of them give priority to the child:
· 48% of Australians said it was more important that a child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad, while only 17% said it was more important that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.
· A full 36% of Australians felt “very strongly” that a child's rights should come first, while only 12% felt “very strongly” that the homosexual couple's rights should come first.
“How does that strength of sentiment for the rights of a child square with the apparent public support for homosexual 'marriage'?” Dr van Gend asked.
“Where does this strong defence of a child's right to a mum and dad leave those simplistic surveys like Crosby/Textor? Or the more recent surveys with lower levels of support for same-sex marriage (Essential 59%; Fairfax 68%). Those surveys ask if people are OK with changing the law on same-sex marriage without asking if people are OK with the package deal of changing the law on same-sex surrogacy and adoption.
"Simplistic surveys about “marriage equality” never ask people about the inequalityinherent in same-sex marriage, the unequal and discriminatory treatment of certain children who will be forced to miss out on either their mother or their father”, Dr van Gend said.
"In public policy we should not artificially separate marriage and the creation of children, since that is the compound reality upon which the institution is founded. That means we should never take seriously any opinion poll that asks about marriage rights for homosexual adults without asking about the loss of a child's birth-right to a mum and a dad.
"Our survey shows that, when you do put both sides of the gay marriage and parenting issue to Australians, 'gay marriage' gets the thumbs down and the rights of the child take priority. That is a very significant new insight into public sentiment on homosexual marriage and parenting in Australia,” Dr van Gend concluded.
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
“Our study finds strong feeling on this issue among almost a third of Coalition voters – the sort of strong feeling that might change votes” Dr van Gend said.
· 29% of Coalition voters would be “MUCH LESS likely” to vote for their MP if he or she supports same-sex marriage, with only 10% “MUCH MORE likely”.
“Even if Coalition MPs feel their own margin can withstand the loss of a significant number of conservative votes, they would have to consider the consequence for the Senate of a reduction in primary votes for the Coalition” said Dr van Gend.
“Part of this strength of feeling among Coalition voters might be because the Coalition went to the last election with the policy that marriage is only between man and woman, and for an MP to move away from that policy in favour of their own private opinion is akin to breaking an election promise.
“For the Coalition to keep faith with the people who elected it, they must keep faith with their policy. Any change from the present clear party policy on marriage to a position of having no policy at all - just a “free vote” by individuals - would have to be taken to the people at the next election.
"However, given the findings of our survey and the strength of feeling shown for a child's right to have both a mother and father, there is firm political ground for Coalition MPs to stand on with their present child-centred policy on marriage.
"There should be no change for the present child-centred, principled Coalition policy, since it defends the rights of the vulnerable third-parties in the marriage debate. Politicians can affirm the fact that same-sex couples are already treated exactly the same under Australian law as any other couple, but they can also stand with 76% of all Australians and affirm that a child should have the right, where possible, to be raised by both their mother and their father.
"And that is only possible if marriage remains between a man and a woman ", Dr van Gend concluded.
“Of the 65% of Australians who did understand that we are forced to choose between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims, it is encouraging to see that the vast majority of them give priority to the child:
· 48% of Australians said it was more important that a child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad, while only 17% said it was more important that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.
· A full 36% of Australians felt “very strongly” that a child's rights should come first, while only 12% felt “very strongly” that the homosexual couple's rights should come first.
“How does that strength of sentiment for the rights of a child square with the apparent public support for homosexual 'marriage'?” Dr van Gend asked.
“Where does this strong defence of a child's right to a mum and dad leave those simplistic surveys like Crosby/Textor? Or the more recent surveys with lower levels of support for same-sex marriage (Essential 59%; Fairfax 68%). Those surveys ask if people are OK with changing the law on same-sex marriage without asking if people are OK with the package deal of changing the law on same-sex surrogacy and adoption.
"Simplistic surveys about “marriage equality” never ask people about the inequalityinherent in same-sex marriage, the unequal and discriminatory treatment of certain children who will be forced to miss out on either their mother or their father”, Dr van Gend said.
"In public policy we should not artificially separate marriage and the creation of children, since that is the compound reality upon which the institution is founded. That means we should never take seriously any opinion poll that asks about marriage rights for homosexual adults without asking about the loss of a child's birth-right to a mum and a dad.
"Our survey shows that, when you do put both sides of the gay marriage and parenting issue to Australians, 'gay marriage' gets the thumbs down and the rights of the child take priority. That is a very significant new insight into public sentiment on homosexual marriage and parenting in Australia,” Dr van Gend concluded.
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
“Our study finds strong feeling on this issue among almost a third of Coalition voters – the sort of strong feeling that might change votes” Dr van Gend said.
· 29% of Coalition voters would be “MUCH LESS likely” to vote for their MP if he or she supports same-sex marriage, with only 10% “MUCH MORE likely”.
“Even if Coalition MPs feel their own margin can withstand the loss of a significant number of conservative votes, they would have to consider the consequence for the Senate of a reduction in primary votes for the Coalition” said Dr van Gend.
“Part of this strength of feeling among Coalition voters might be because the Coalition went to the last election with the policy that marriage is only between man and woman, and for an MP to move away from that policy in favour of their own private opinion is akin to breaking an election promise.
“For the Coalition to keep faith with the people who elected it, they must keep faith with their policy. Any change from the present clear party policy on marriage to a position of having no policy at all - just a “free vote” by individuals - would have to be taken to the people at the next election.
"However, given the findings of our survey and the strength of feeling shown for a child's right to have both a mother and father, there is firm political ground for Coalition MPs to stand on with their present child-centred policy on marriage.
"There should be no change for the present child-centred, principled Coalition policy, since it defends the rights of the vulnerable third-parties in the marriage debate. Politicians can affirm the fact that same-sex couples are already treated exactly the same under Australian law as any other couple, but they can also stand with 76% of all Australians and affirm that a child should have the right, where possible, to be raised by both their mother and their father.
"And that is only possible if marriage remains between a man and a woman ", Dr van Gend concluded.
