Menzies House

Same Sex Marriage: The Sinister Agenda

Andy Semple argues that same-sex marriage will severely damage Australian society:

Question: How do you go about destroying our democratic capitalist society?  Where do you direct the critical blow so it will do the most damage?  In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.

That's where same-sex marriage comes in.  It's no mystery why it commands considerable support.  After all, what can be more of a fair go than the idea of granting equality to a formerly persecuted group that has done nothing untoward other than being different in its sexual tastes?  Sort of like being discriminated because of the colour of one's skin (even though many US black leaders, jealously guarding their highly lucrative victimhood, take strong exception to equating gay liberation with the civil rights struggle).  So recognition of same sex unions as legitimate marriages seems to be a harmless idea.  But appearances can be deceptive.  Few things are more destructive than same sex marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society - the institution of marriage.

Not a single society in the history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage. Marriage is viewed as sacrosanct and never called into question. Marriage has always been universally understood by all cultures as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the human species. Indeed, humans took their cue from nature, where the heterosexual family is virtually the sole organising principle of life.

Indeed, so central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any democratic capitalist society.  The many forms of social organisation are but permutations of the basic family pattern - the clan, the tribe, the society and the state are merely an extended family.

But why is same sex marriage unfriendly to the traditional matrimony? How does society suffer if it gives legal sanction to the sharing of gay couples and bestows upon them the rights traditionally granted to spouses? Homosexuals claim they have a right to “marriage” as a civil rights issue. They do not. Homosexual couples already have all the same rights as heterosexual couples. What certain homosexuals want to do is disrespect the heterosexual orthodoxy and co-occupy a word for their own use – marriage. The hard facts are that legalisation of same-sex marriage will compromise the institution of marriage and thus will undermine the family built on the foundation of marriage.

A Conscience Vote On Same-Sex Marriage

Alex Greenwhich, the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, argues that denying Coalition MP's a conscience vote on state-sanctioned same-sex marriage will be a significant political error:

The clear message from recent elections and opinion polls is that the Coalition will suffer electorally if it fails to abide by its own principles and allow a free vote on marriage equality.

Currently, Tony Abbott refuses Coalition MPs and Senators a fully-fledged conscience vote on this issue.

This is despite the Labor Party having one, and despite the Coalition's tradition of allowing its members greater freedom than Labor MPs.

Indeed, according to Parliamentary Library research, this is the first time in history the Coalition is denied a free vote when the ALP has one.

Abbott's rationale is that he made a promise at the last election not to support reform.

His hope is that only opponents of marriage equality will notice and/or care by the time the next election rolls around.

But it seems the Australian people are not sticking to script.

At the weekend a Galaxy poll was released showing 77% of Coalition voters want the Coalition to have a conscience vote on the issue.

Yesterday, another Galaxy poll shows 73% of voters believe the Coalitions' tradition of allowing conscience vote on such issues is what should guide Coalition policy, not Tony Abbott's personal views or undertakings.

Is It Time To Be Sparticus?

From the great blog "Counting Cats in Zanzibar", comes this horrific tale:

The Archbishop Cranmer has been reported by some number of small minded bigots to the Advertising Standards Authority. These people apparently object to any opinion with which they disagree being broadcast to the general public, in this case an advertisement which supports the belief “that marriage is a life-long union between one man and one woman, in accordance with the teaching of the Established Church, the beliefs of its Supreme Governor, and the law of the land."

The ASA, in their wisdom, have had the bare faced gall to demand his Eminence justify his political opinion, and his open support for the law and the teachings of The Church Established.

Personally, I don’t give a toss about gay marriage, one way or the other. Seriously, I just plain don’t care. However, I do object to agents, or pseudo agents, of the state demanding a freeborn Englishman justify his political views under threat of violence and sanction. So feel free to enjoy the advertisement.

Who the hell do these people think they are?

H/T Samizdata

It truly is a scary world we live in... 

Click here to read more from Counting Cats 

 

Lobbyist’s insults will not convince Abbott of same sex marriage

Carrington Brigham discusses the attacks on Tony Abbott for his opposition to state-sanctioned same sex marriage:

Last Monday Left wing Gay rights activist Rodney Croome wrote an article in The Drum claiming that Abbott cannot possibly love his sister’s partner because he will not allow his sister and his sister-in-law to marry, and further will prevent any possibility of this occurring. Croome claims the recent articles about Abbott’s love and respect for his sister are nothing more than a ruse to paint Abbott as a loving, caring family man. Croome stated that the article was:

“…designed to neutralise Tony Abbott's opposition to marriage equality, by showing him in the best possible light – moderates will give him the nod for accepting his sister, and religious conservatives will be happy he has loved the sinner without condoning the sin.”

What is really sad here is that Croome is already preaching to the converted. You know? Those Abbott haters! As a result we see a protester imposing on Abbott when he’s having a quiet coffee with a journalist on a Sunday afternoon because of his opposition to gay marriage. By all means protest against Tony Abbott’s opposition to gay marriage, but is it not possible to do this peacefully? Secondly what was the young protester trying to achieve? Did she really think that if she disrupts Abbott in a café she will convince him of the need to change the Marriage Act? I ask you – if someone comes up to you within metres, and starts protesting at you at the top of their lungs, would you listen? Would you be convinced of their plight?

Croome’s op-ed is disappointing because there are many members, supporters and volunteers of the Liberal party who happen to be same-sex attracted. Many of these people would like to see marriage equality, and many are working to share their views and opinions on the matter with Coalition parliamentarians. You may have heard some of this on Triple J’s ‘Hack’ earlier last week. Croome threatens to set back the efforts of these people with his vitriolic and personal attack on Abbott, and the mischaracterisation of Abbott’s feelings for his family is frankly deplorable. These same people of the left then wonder why Abbott says such things as feeling “threatened” about homosexuality. (To which Abbott said he later regretted stating in an interview on Melbourne’s Gay radio station JoyFM interviewed by Doug Pollard.)

Croome says of The Australian article about Abbott’s sister: “I’m not deceived”.  Well, Rodney, there is no deception as Abbott clearly loves his sister. Around the time his sister was ‘coming out’, Abbott made it clear during an interview on JoyFM that there were people close to him who are gay.  He did not reveal exactly whom.

Broken promise robs children of rights

 

George Christensen MP argues against governmenental sanction of same-sex marriage:

In a video recorded for the Australian Christian Lobby and for the benefit of people of faith right across this country, just before the 2009 election, the Prime Minister made this statement:

"We have determined, as a Labor Party, that the Marriage Act will stay unchanged so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act, as between a man and a woman, and we have also said that the Labor Party policy is we do not want to see the development of ceremonies that mimic marriage ceremonies and so that's the party policy and as Prime Minister, as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, that's obviously my policy and that's what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor government if we're re-elected."

That is a pretty clear, explicit and unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister, from the leader of the Labor Party. To press the point, in the context of this interview, the interviewer—the Australian Christian Lobby's Managing Director, Brigadier Jim Wallace—went on to ask the Prime Minister:

"Can I just say that obviously one of the concerns of the constituency here is the knowledge that this was only, it seemed, upheld by direct intervention of the highest levels of the party at the last Labor conference. So you're saying that a Gillard Labor government will keep that policy in place?"

To which the Prime Minister replied, 'Absolutely'.

Then she went on to say:

"I was personally and directly involved in this policy and its development at the last national conference."

So it is very clear that at the 2009 election the Australian Labor Party made a solemn commitment to the electorate to support the legal definition of 'marriage'—that definition, as it is in the current Act, being as between one man and one woman.

Christophobia Marches On

 

 

George Christensen MP looks at the same-sex marriage debate through the prism of growing attacks on Christianity by the state around the world:

The sentiments behind the recent push by independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie to exempt churches from having to perform same sex ‘marriages’, if indeed they are legalised, are probably well-intentioned.

However, it is clear from the global experience that any such sentiments, legislated, codified or otherwise, will not withstand the ongoing march of Christophobia that is occurring throughout the Western world.

This Christophobia – this system persecution of the faithful – is not something new for Christians. In fact, Saint Paul’s second epistle to Timothy warns us that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution”.

But such persecution is anathema to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states:

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion… (including the) freedom… in public … to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching; (and) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom...”

And yet in Great Britain the situation is that intolerable for Christians that in recent years, the Archbishop of York of the Church of England, the Rt Rev John Sentamu was moved to say that there are:

Rudd Quits ALP over Gay Marriage

Kevin Rudd's sister has quit the Australian Labor Party, saying she cannot back a party that supports "homosexuals marrying".

Loree Rudd, 61, said she sent the letter to her Nambour branch last week after a policy shift at the ALP National Conference on December 3.

Good on her. At least this Rudd has a spine.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Abbott Needs to Say No to a Gay Marriage Conscience Vote

Tony Abbott should not give in to the lobbying from the ALP, the ABC and his band of progressive Liberals and allow a conscience vote on Gay Marriage.

The pro-Gay Marriage camp claims to have the majority of public support so I say put that majority to a test and let’s have a referendum. It’s that important.

The Australian newspaper today reports that Malcolm “Treacherous” Turnbull, along with other progressive Liberals, have been lobbying Tony Abbott for two months to allow the coalition members a conscience vote. Abbott shouldn’t surrender.

Homosexuals claim they have a right to “marriage” as a civil rights issue. They do not. Homosexual couples already have all the same rights as heterosexual couples. What certain homosexuals want to do is disrespect the heterosexual orthodoxy and co-occupy a word for their own use - marriage. That is the sole issue.

And as for Labor Senator Doug “subtitles needed” Cameron demanding Tony Abbott allow for a conscience vote on Gay Marriage yet arguing at the weekend’s ALP National Conference that his fellow Labor members should not be extended the same conscience vote privilege just smacks of typical Labor hypocrisy.

I just hope Tony Abbott doesn’t get sucked in and succumb to the pressure. Saying “No” to a Gay Marriage conscience vote is the right thing to do.

I'd also rather have Tony Abbott as “Dr No” for Prime Minister than Julia Gillard as “Dr No Idea.”

 

Be Gay and Happy and Follow Andy on twitter