Shorten’s bill will make millions of marriages inferior

The Opposition Leader’s private members bill insults those who treat marriage as hallowed ground.

When Prince William and Catherine Middleton were married in 2011 they, and millions of others, heard it declared that marriage is an honourable estate that had been created to unite a man and a woman and established them as a new family unit.

In planning to introduce a private members bill next week to alter the Marriage Act, Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek, are publicly declaring that the millions of marriages in Australia are essentially too inferior, deficient and discriminatory.

They are supposedly part of a historic institution that has retrospectively been determined by the Labor leadership to be invalid and obsolete.

This is an extraordinary insult, especially to those migrant communities for whom wedlock is hallowed ground. While there is indeed a place for recognising gay unions, another term besides marriage should be promoted, which does not undermine the most stabilising and sacrosanct relationship in society, or reduce the sacred covenant of commitment to a sterile contract of convenience.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

Bill Shorten private member’s bill is a desperate move for a desperate leader. This push for the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not the way for it to be fully discussed, because this will change lives now and in the future for a minority of people. There aren’t many votes for Labor in this.

If a loving couple want to have a legal union or a celebration I think they should be able to do so, but they should call it a civil ceremony or celebration. Don’t define it as marriage.

Lesley Beckhouse, Queanbeyan. NSW

Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek are trying to make same-sex marriage purely a political issue by hoping to embarrass the Abbott government. The issue is much more than that — it is something that should be thoroughly looked at and debated and then put to the people by referendum.

Shorten is weak on issues such as reducing the deficit and so forth, so he has to take a sensitive issue and exploit it for political purposes rather than think through the ramifications of an enormous social change.

Geoff Hinds, Merrylands, NSW

Judiciary in disrepute

I despair for Queenslanders because their judiciary is now brought into disrepute by those same judges. Chief Justice Tim Carmody has never been shown any support by the Queensland legal community, as evidenced by its refusal to attend his swearing-in, before he had either proven his worth in his role, or not.

If Carmody caves in and resigns, who is to take his place? It can be argued that all the other judges who did not attend his swearing-in are disqualified by the perceived motivation of their self-interest.

Ailsa Lennox, Bulimba, Qld

It’s a pity, but not a surprise, that the only likely female contender for the job of Queensland’s chief justice (if Tim Carmody resigns) is now out of the running (“McMurdo no walk-up start for chief justice”, 26/5).

Margaret McMurdo’s refusal to sit on a case with Carmody may be the best indication of her willingness to stand by her principles in making the “right” decisions.

The penalty for speaking out is high. I hope the male candidates, who share the stated “advantage of relative youth” can measure up to her potential — less to do with relative youth than competence, qualifications and experience.

Carole Peters, Shenton Park, WA

Super question

If Bill Shorten is intent on fighting the next election on superannuation, he should answer questions on how he would have tackled the unfairness of Labor’s original super arrangements had they not been made fairer by the Coalition’s 2007 amendments. Under the 1994 scheme, the reasonable benefit limit was $800,000. This amount was believed at that time to be relatively modest. This limit was annually increased by the rate of increase in average weekly earnings so, without the 2007 changes, it would have escalated to $2.36 million. Since Shorten seems to believe it is unfair that retirees have more than $2m in super to provide their retirement income, could he advise which component of Labor’s 1994 scheme was actually unfair?

Brent Walker, Killcare, NSW

No regrets for Carlton

I don’t blame Carlton president Mark LoGiudice or the board for sacking coach Mick Malthouse. There is no point in regrets. They have called it as they see it. The air and atmosphere is beginning to clear already.

And now the pressure is on the LoGiudice board to produce, or the “out clause” might have to be invoked. I wish them luck. The marketplace is saturated with too many teams, not enough talent, and three clubs so far in front they might just stay there.

Arthur Pagonis, Morley, WA