On the 5th April 2006, as Christian leaders from different denominations were lining up to condemn the Stanhope government decision to introduce civil union, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) had organised a petition circulating in Canberra calling on people to sign it in order to protect marriage.
The petition was designed to show the Stanhope government the level of community concern at the introduction the ACT Civil Union Bill (2006), which seeks to ‘undermine, confuse and diminish the current definition of marriage. This is not in the best interest of parents, children and society and is very likely unconstitutional.’
Assembly of God (AOG) President Pastor Brian Houston had described the civil union as ‘an attempt to so closely mimic marriage that there threaten to undermine the majority held view that marriage was…between a man and a woman.’ He further encouraged Australians to safeguard marriage saying: “Marriage and families that ensue from them make up the fabric of our society, and I believed, as would most Australians, that this was something worth nurturing and safeguarding.”
The Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn through Bishop George Browing (Bishop of Canberra & Goulburn) and Bishop Trevor Edwards (Assistant Bishop of Canberra & Goulburn) described the introduction of civil union as ‘actually threatening and compromising the traditional Christian view of marriage between a man and a woman.’
They further went on stating: “The proposal to apply lesser age requirements for such civil unions was thoroughly unhelpful to young people in their developing years, and was therefore not in their best interests or the ultimate good of society as a whole.”
National Vice President of the Australian Family Association, Mary-Louise Fowler believed the ACT civil union would tamper with the traditional understanding of marriage, which was a grave error and then asked why change something that was already beneficial to society.
She said: “Studies showed that children and spouses in strong marriages were the ones who did best on all scores – socially, economically, emotionally and so on. Why on earth would we want to jeopardize marriage and the benefits it brings to families by blurring its meaning?”
As Christians from different denominations and family groups begun to clamor for the Stanhope government to withdraw its position, the federal government through Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock was even more blunt in warning the ACT government to reverse its position saying: “The ACT Civil Unions Bill was in conflict with the Federal Marriage Act 1961 and Mr. Stanhope had two choices, either face a Federal Government willing to over ride the legislation or scraped it himself.”
Christians believed that homosexual couple should not be discriminated against and believed if the ACT government wanted to promote equality then it should adopt the Tasmania registry approach, which does not conflict with the Federal Marriage Act.