GAY TRUTH

Nine Labor and Green Politicians are being allowed to change the definition of marriage for the rest of the nation? Outrageous!  A West Australian Labor MP plans to be among the first to marry his homosexual partner when homosexual marriage becomes legal in the Australian Capital Territory tomorrow. The MLC Stephen Dawson intends to marry his partner of 10 years, Dennis, in a small ceremony in the ACT at one minute past midnight. The new immoral laws being forced on Australia by nine politicians (Labor and Greens) allowing homosexuals to marry will be short-lived as they face a huge challenge in the High Court . The huge challenges is that these immoral relationships will not be recognized in different states on a whole range of issues, including financial, welfare, inheritance, death and other issues that only federal marriages can claim. Mr Dawson wants to sends a message to the community. In effect, he is saying, whether you like it or not we will force homosexual

The future of the ACT's immoral homosexual marriage laws rightly hang in the balance today as the High Court prepares to hear a Commonwealth challenge to the legislation. The ACT Legislative Assembly with only the Greens and Labor (9 people only) passed the law in late October and the first immoral weddings are due to take place next Saturday in total defiance and presumption of the law. Nine people nine politicians think they have the authority to change the law of the land. The principle question in the case is whether the law is inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act. The answer is obviously no. But homosexual advocates rarely accept no, but always seek to defy the law constantly. The Howard government and later Labor governments correctly blocked earlier efforts by the ACT to shove homosexuality and homosexual relationships on the nation. This displays again the level of arrogance by some state leaders. Constitutional law expert George Williams says this time the Com

Rainbow flag. Symbol of gay pride. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) IN Australia 's often hysterical same-sex marriage dispute there are two benchmarks - the only enduring basis for change should be the national parliament and that vote should be based on conscience, given the practice established with the 1961 Marriage Act. Or put to a referendum where the people will vote it out as it did with Kevin Rudd who supported immoral homosexual marriage. Related articles Colorado Couple Suing Over State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban (huffingtonpost.com) Why should the high court decide on homosexual marriage and not a referendum? (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) The follies of an over blown town council (iainhall.wordpress.com) Let Homosexual Marriage go to a referendum (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) Homosexual Marriage is a slippery slope (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) Sinful homosexual want what they will never get, RESPECT (gaychristianbeliever.blogspo

Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what more is gai

Author: Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what mor

Image via  Wikipedia No more divisive issue faces the churches of this country today than the question of marriage and  homosexuals .  Like the issue of slavery a century ago, it has the potential for splitting entire denominations. And like the issue of slavery, the argument revolves around the interpretation of Scripture.   What does the Bible say about homosexuality, and how do homosexuals reinterpret these verses? First let's look at how homosexual churches twist bible verses.  The Metropolitan Community Church (Homosexual church argues that w begin by excluding all references to Sodom in the Old and  New Testaments , since the sin of the Sodomites was homosexual rape, carried out by  heterosexuals  intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. They also argue that this is the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21. Their brutal gang-rape has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between cons

English: Penny Wong, Senator for South Australia, accepting Penrith City Council's "Sustaianable Penrith" bucket hat at her UNFCCC address in Bali 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) ABC Reports: A bill recognising overseas same-sex marriages has been overwhelmingly voted down in the Senate, with Government and Opposition senators crossing the floor to vote. Last year the Senate voted down a bill aimed at recognising the marriages of gay and lesbian Australians who have been wed overseas, and the Coalition, which officially opposes gay marriage, labelled today's bill as a backdoor way of reigniting the debate. But Liberal-National Senator Sue Boyce disagreed and crossed the floor to support the bill. "Within the Liberal Party one always has the option of exercising a free vote, and if we are to vote on this legislation, I will be voting for this bill because I think it advances the cause of same-sex marriage in Australia ," the Queensland senator said.

Below is an article from the SMH. Sarah Hanson Young and others are trying to convinve churches the legalization of homosexuality will not impact churches.  Their line is this, the change in the marriage act will not force Churches to marry homosexuals. All churches in Australia would refuse to do so anyways as it is against their position. That's not the point.  They are changing the marriage act completely. They are relentless and aggressive. They care little of the church and are quite prepared to damage one of Australai leading charitable bodies the Salvation Army simply to achieve their rights. They care little that God ordained marriage as a covenant and gave it to government to manage.  This legislation will bring no change? Truth or deception? However, when you look to the UK , and Canada, you will find that the homosexual agenda is forcing Catholic Schools (Bill 13 Canada) to have anti-bullying club in school.  Essentially these are pro-homosexu

Image via Wikipedia Author: M. Devine  The fact that Penny Wong ’s female partner is to have a baby is a cause for private celebration for them. But why are so many people exhorting the rest of us to celebrate as if this were some major milestone in human civilisation? You’d think no politician had ever had a child before. We are supposed to ignore Tony and Margie Abbott’s three daughters because every time he is seen with them it is some sort of unfair snub to Julia Gillard and reflection on her marital status. The traditional heterosexual norm of a nuclear family and children is something to be kept in a closet like an embarrassment. Tolerance has gone back to front. It is no longer good enough to accept without criticism female politicians in de facto or lesbian relationships. Now we have to downplay traditional marriage for fear of causing offence. No one can be a wife or husband any more. Everyone is a “partner”. The unorthodox situation of a lesbian artificially i