Greens Transgender Politician takes preiest to court?
The national newspapers reporting
of the freedom-sapping effects of same-sex marriage legislation is a potential
game-changer in the long-running debate.
After years of the gay
lobby saying there were no consequences to changing the definition of marriage,
suddenly mainstream media is waking up to the fact that this is not true.
Concerns that ACL and
others have raised for years about the impacts on freedom of speech and
religion are now being taken seriously by serious journalists.
The action against
Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous and the entire Australian Catholic Bishop’s
Conference in the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission has woken
journalists at News Corp with a jolt.
The action is by Greens
political candidate and transgender activist, Martine Delaney, who has claimed
offence under the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act over a Catholic booklet
entitled “Don’t Mess with Marriage”.
The booklet contains all
of the key arguments our side of the debate would want to use in the up-coming
people’s vote or plebiscite on marriage.
Perhaps this is why the
Greens want to use the big stick of the law to maintain their advantage in what
has been to date a propaganda war.
I was pleased to be interviewed last week by The
Australian’s legal
affairs reporter, Nicola Berkovic. She quoted me accurately and also my friend
Dr David van Gend of the Australian Marriage Forum. Her piece, Tongue-tied by the thought
police is well worth reading and worth the price
to get through The Australian’s paywall.
And in a second piece published on the same day, The
Australian’s Editor
at Large, Paul Kelly, wrote a powerful column
exposing the anti-religious freedom agenda of the same-sex political activists. Kelly is one of
Australia’s most respected political journalists.
The Australian followed up with an
editorial on Monday entitled Ramifications beyond gay
marriage (also behind the paywall
– maybe you should subscribe to the Aus).
Sadly the Fairfax Media’s The Age and the Sydney
Morning Herald have
reported nothing of the action against the bishops.
I sat next to a senior
Fairfax journalist at a Christmas lunch last week at Parliament House. He had
not heard of the Porteous case but said journalists should be the first to
defend free speech. Hear, hear!
Of course, our freedoms
are not the primary reason for supporting marriage the way it is. A change perpetrates a
terrible injustice on children who will be deliberately denied their mother or
father.
No one denies that two
men can love a baby and be good parents. But it is not right to take a baby
from her or his mother to satisfy the “equality” demands of two men.
The same goes for two
women using anonymous sperm donation to deprive a child of her or his father.
It is good that the
media are reporting same-sex marriage’s threats to basic civil liberties.
It now needs to
investigate the flow-on effects of “marriage equality” – namely the ethics of
taking children from their parents through assisted reproductive technology to
satisfy the demands of unrelated adults.
