Menzies House

Why state marriage is worse for marriage than gay marriage

Major Karnage explains why gay marriage should never have been an issue before Parliament.

Cross-posted from Major Karnage

A few conversations popped-up on my Facebook feed last week regarding the revelation that Tony Abbot has a gay sister and has *gasp* not shunned her. In fact, he treats her quite well.

Why is that a "shock"? Well, Tony Abbot holds the point of view that "marriage" is something that happens between a man and a woman. To numerous proponents of gay marriage, this means that he is a priori a homophobe. I definitely saw at least one comment thread in which someone accused him of trying to "hide" his "bigotry" through treating his sister well when he clearly is actually a bigot because he is against gay marriage.

This is a stupid argument to make. There seems to be this horrible tendency amongst fanatics to assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing so out of prejudice. I see it all the time with the Middle East conflict. Being anti-Israel is antisemitic, and being pro-Israel is Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, normative, imperialist, neo-colonialist... you get the picture. It also happens with immigration, feminism and plenty of other areas. It's a very simple argument, it's almost always wrong and it actually works against your point – no one is ever going to agree with you if you keep calling them a sexist because "Israeli occupation hurts Palestinian women as well as men". Especially when you have a month-long summit on the global status of women and this is the only condemnation you could come up with – as if everything is fine and dandy everywhere else in the world (it isn't). Yeah UN Commission on the Status of Women, I'm looking at you.

Big M little m

The problem is that they are arguing about different things. To gay marriage proponents, "marriage" is a right. To Tony Abbot, "marriage" means

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:

Marriage should remain the gold standard

Marriage is not the institution it once was, writes Senator Cory Bernardi.

Since my appointment to the Senate I have written letters of congratulations to those reaching 100 years of age or celebrating a golden wedding anniversary. I must have personally signed thousands of such letters and always do so with a smile. To me these events are truly significant and with each signature, a part of me celebrates with them.

Over time I have written to the same people more than once as they reach other milestones of longevity - either personal or marital union. Thanks to medical technology more of us are living through our tenth decade but I suspect that far fewer of us will be celebrating magnificent marriage milestones in the future.

The Sex Files?

Stop wasting public funds on the Human Rights Commission, writes Jerome Appleby.

In March 2009, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) handed down the concluding paper of its ‘sex and gender diversity’ project.  The paper, entitled ‘Sex files: The legal recognition of sex in legal documents’, contained all sorts of kooky recommendations.

A recent news report about a man who is encountering problems having his “change of sex” recognised by the NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages suggests that the AHRC is about to ramp up a campaign to have these recommendations implemented.  This should be of concern to all Australians.

What Australian women really want

The Australian feminist lobby speaks on behalf of very few Australian women, writes Nona Florat.

It is a matter for grave concern that politicians of an Emily's List mindset presume to speak for Australian women. As an Australian woman, I take strong exception. It was pointed out by Sen. George Brandis that the Deputy Prime Minister is not a parent. Neither am I. But I warmly congratulate Tony Abbott for having the courage to speak up for the dignity of the human person, and for family values that have been recognised throughout human history.

Abbott's words inspire more than they provoke fear

Listen to Tony Abbott and not the commentators, writes Monica O'Shea.

It is clear the media, Gillard and left-wing commentators have been waiting for an opportunity to jump on Abbott and his so-called extreme conservative views.