Bill Muehlenberg parted company with the National Civic Council’s Australian Family Association (AFA) around the end of last year. He has since been writing freelance articles for a number of Religious Right outfits and has started a website of his own - www.billmuehlenberg.com.

Some people can handle editorial independence but I have my doubts about Bill. In a recent commentary, he assails Alistair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court, for some remarks he made on the SBS Insight program on 16 May. Bill was particularly incensed by Nicholson’s ‘incredible claim that it is “an act of cruelty” to not recognise and legalise same-sex marriage and adoption rights.’

According to Bill, Nicholson has been ‘a strident proponent of various radical agendas’ for several years. Is a concern for the rights of gays and lesbians ‘a radical agenda’ these days? Surely not. Anyway, I’ll let Bill speak for himself:

… [Nicholson] went on to say that there is ‘not one shred of credible evidence’ that children raised in a same-sex relationship ‘have any disadvantage in relation to other children’. He continued, ‘I don’t think it matters whether the person is a male or female or two males, (or) two females, provided they are loving parents.’

I’m sure that these views would be shared by a substantial majority of Australians, but Bill will have none of it:

Sorry, but he is simply denying the facts in the interests of pushing his own radical agenda.

(Again with the mysterious ‘radical agenda’!)

The truth is, there are over 10,000 social science studies that have come out over the past four decades, and they all point in one direction: children are best served, by every indicator, when living with their biological mother and father. No other family structure comes close to the positive benefits of being raised in a biological two-parent family. Indeed, there are many negative benefits associated with not being raised in the natural family.

Leaving aside the question of whether you can have a ‘negative benefit’ - old fuddy-duddy that I am, I never even quite approved of ‘negative growth’ - Bill immediately starts backing away from this unsustainable pronouncement:

Generally speaking, the research clearly shows [Hang on, what do you mean, 'generally speaking'? Didn't you just say that all 10,000+ studies point in one direction?] that kids are more likely to commit suicide, do less well in school, and be more likely to become involved in crime and drugs, when raised in households other than the two-parent family. [Whoa! Before it was the biological two-parent family, which actually excludes heterosexual married couples using donor eggs or sperm. A 'two-parent family' is a much broader idea encompassing de facto and even homosexual couples depending on definitions used in the study. Looks like we're going to have to examine all these studies on a case by case basis.]

Back to Bill:

Of course there are exceptions, [Nope, according to you all 10,000 studies - whatever and wherever they may be - 'point in one direction'] but this is the clear weight of the social research. Thus [Nicholson] is simply ignoring the evidence in order to ram through his own ideological goals.

Bill’s been preaching these vacuous assertions to the AFA choir for so long that he thinks he can get away with it. Emboldened by his own rhetoric, he now sallies forth from his unassailable fortress:

[Nicholson] went on to say that Christian values on marriage should not apply to the law.

This is not what it says in the Insight transcript - Nicholson: There’s no element of Christian marriage in the Marriage Act at all. It’s simply a piece of legislation which permits marriages to take place. (7) This is beyond dispute, but not according to Bill:

This is another incredible claim, and is simply wrong-headed for several reasons. The truth is, Western society is built on the Judaeo-Christian worldview and moral system. [Definitions please, Bill] What is [Nicholson] suggesting? That we renounce every law, every custom, every social more that may have a trace of religious background to it? Perhaps then we must ditch our laws on murder, theft and lying to begin with. After all, they are all part of our Christian heritage.

And what would the former judge do with the fact that 68 per cent of Australians are Christian, according to the last census? Should they be disqualified from voting, from public life, from positions of power and influence, because they might contaminate society with religious beliefs?

In an earlier commentary, Muehlenberg expressed anxiety about the approaching ‘criminalisation of Christianity’ in Australia (www.acl.org.au 14 May 2006). Won’t some compassionate Religious Right group please take Bill under their wing again and give him the editor he so sorely needs?

Filed in: Christian Right, People, Sexuality