Mal Fletcher comments

Again, this is perhaps a worthwhile programme, though only time will tell how much a government can offer what broken extended families have failed to provide.

Yet the Prime Minister does not seem to see the inconsistency of promoting the welfare of children on one hand while effectively ruling on the other that marriage, the foundation of the family, should be deconstructed and replaced with something that is totally unproven.

A debate about redefining marriage should not focus primarily on individual adult rights. To a large degree, it should dwell on the best interests of children, who suffer most when the marriage bond is 'tweaked', weakened or broken.

Reputable independent studies continue to reveal that children who are raised by a mother and father, in a long-term and stable relationship, will suffer fewer developmental problems, on average, than children who do not.

Making divorce easier has already had a considerable, negative impact on the wellbeing of children in our society. Deconstructing the marriage bond itself will potentially make the situation immeasurably worse for future generations. This is not being debated.

A true debate about marriage should also focus on the balance between personal autonomy and social responsibility - or what members of the Queen's generation would call our 'duty'.

Our country is in trouble economically partly because we've tended to worship autonomy over accountability.

In their rush to make profits and keep up with the corporate Joneses, certain bankers acted irresponsibly, placing personal short-term gain over the long-term interests of other people.

But they're not the only ones to have done so. Throughout society as a whole, people have often indulged in behaviour that seems right or beneficial to them as individuals at the time, sometimes sacrificing the appropriate for the convenient.

We have sometimes opted for what best expresses our individual freedoms, without necessarily giving much forethought as to its future consequences.

Any true debate on the shape of marriage would focus on the future ramifications of decisions made today. After all, what one generation tolerates, the next may treat as normal.

How will an emerging youth generation burnish its own liberal credentials? It will take things one step further than its parents did. What then for marriage?

Technologists will agree that conditions already exist that might make cyber-marriage a desirable reality. People are already forming romantic and even erotic relationships online. Almost 20 percent of divorces in this country cite Facebook as a contributing factor.

Might not some of these people want their 'relationship' to be granted the kudos and protections of marriage, despite the fact that it is lived out primarily (or totally) online?