But it does me no credit to condemn Ms Francis as a bigot without addressing the substance of her argument (such as it is). It seems the only way religious groups such as Family First think they can gain traction on this issue is by conflating gay marriage with other hot button issues; and what could be more emotive than the spectre of gay couples raising children? Now, if there is indeed "evidence" as Ms Francis claims (beyond her own prejudices) that gay couples inflict emotional abuse on children in their care, then surely any competent adoption agency isn't going to adopt out to a gay couple, no matter how legally married they are. Lesbian couples of course don't need to resort to adoption in order to "abuse" a child; a woman can legally have a baby regardless of her marital status. Is Ms Francis suggesting that any woman in the family way "caught" in a lesbian relationship have the pregnancy terminated or be forced to hand it over to an adoption agency? It seems to me that denying a committed lesbian couple the protections entitled to a heterosexual couple would be much more likely to inflict harm on the young child caught in the middle of their religious crusade. Family First would do themselves much more credit if they came out and admitted their real concern with gay marriage (or even civil unions) is about denying legitimacy to gay relationships. But I think a party that did a preference swap with the Liberty and Democracy Party (a party supposedly diametrically opposed to much of Family First's policies but still happy to share preferences with them) at the last election and allegedly proposed a preference swap with the Australian Sex Party at this election doesn't have much in the way of moral fortitude.
