GAY TRUTH

But I want to suggest there is a slightly more pernicious at work, namely, an indirect suppression of the views of ethnic and cultural minorities. The real minorities in Australia — migrant communities, religious minorities, and indigenous Australians — are being subtlety treated as culturally “backward” and having their voices ignored by their supposed advocates in the public domain — the Left. Despite the media grandstanding of gay and transgender members of the indigenous community , scores of Aboriginal elders have spoken out against same-sex marriage, claiming it is fundamentally opposed to indigenous community praxis. Speaking to AAP recently, Peter Walker, an Aboriginal Elder from NSW, said that “the sacred and traditional union between man and woman is deeply part of our ancient and continuing culture across all of our communities”. In 2015, Walker and dozens of elders from the indigenous community presented a bark petition backed by more than 46 indigenous groups and clan

The Conversation  article today was one by Emeritus Professor Bill Louden, “ FactCheck: will Safe Schools be ‘mandatory’ if  same-sex  marriage is legalised? ”  (The Conversation , Oct 2, 2017). This was in response to a claim made on advertising issued by the Australian Conservatives: If same-sex marriage is legalised, Safe Schools and others like it will be mandatory in schools. It is worth noting, of course, that Professor Louden, as the Conversation makes clear: was previously on the board of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). In 2016, Bill Louden was commissioned by Education Minister Simon Birmingham to conduct an independent review into the appropriateness and efficacy of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program resource. The result of Professor Louden’s previous, very quick, review was that the Turnbull Government withdrew some of its support for the “Safe Schools” program, although not immediately and not completel

The first article, by Robyn J Whitaker, “ If Australia says ‘yes’, churches are still free to say ‘no’ to marrying  same-sex  couples ” ( The Conversation ,  Oct 2 , 2017), reassures churches that they currently enjoy freedom to decline to marry those who ask to be married by them, and that this will continue. The article is a fair summary of the current law- under the  Marriage Act  1961 (Cth),  s 47(a) relevantly provides: Nothing in this Part (a) imposes an obligation on an authorised celebrant, being a minister of religion, to solemnise any marriage… This provisions protects all ministers of religion (even those from denominations not “proclaimed” under s 26 of the Act) from being required, purely by virtue of the authority that they may have under Part IV of the  Marriage Act  (“this Part” referred to in s 47) ,  to solemnise a marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs. However, there are two important qualifications that ought to have been provided b

A SIGN calling for people to tick No on their same sex marriage survey forms has been taken down within hours of being erected at the Hobart Showground . The Coalition for Marriage sign was put up yesterday but disappeared a few hours later. The Coalition for Marriage has expressed disappointment about the removal from the billboard. Coalition spokesman Alex Sidhu said the sign had been erected at 10am yesterday and was taken down at 3pm. It is one of about 10 “It’s OK to say ‘no’” billboards around Tasmania . “We do not want to comment on how or why the decision to take the sign down was made, we are just concentrating on getting our message out that there are consequences to a change to the definition of marriage,” Mr Sidhu said. It is understood the billboard is owned and operated by Claude Neon. Claude Neon has been contacted for comment. Liberal Senator  Eric Abetz said: “This is yet another ugly example the intimidation and bullying engaged in by the ‘yes’ campaign

During the years leading up to the same-sex “marriage” ruling by the Supreme Court , Christian Conservatives who opposed redefining marriage were routinely mocked for using the “slippery slope” argument which suggested that the elimination of the one-man/one-woman requirement for marriage would ultimately lead to additional redefinitions of what constitutes a marriage . This concern was addressed by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case when he wrote: “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” It didn’t take long for these fears to be realized.   Just weeks after the same-sex marriage ruling, Kody Brown, the star of TLC’s reality-TV show , Sister Wives , went to court to have his polygamist relationship with four women legally recognized. Though the case was initially thrown out, Brown continues his fight through appeals and publi

DOCTORS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY -BUT SUPPORT IMMORAL  IDEOLOGY The AMA is supporting immoral same-sex marriage despite a massive internal conservative backlash.  With only a few former Australian Medical Association bosses joining the cause and urging a "yes" vote on health grounds - one of which is the leader of the same sex movement. AMA President Michael Gannon lied about research on homosexuals and their children but despite being found in a lie - his leadership team have vowed to continue advocating for change despite facing massive blowback from many conservative doctors unhappy with the peak group's stance. The reason is many doctors understand biology and science but their leader is about ideology, not science and not health. Dr Glasson is a former Liberal candidate who was denied a seat in Federal Parliament partly because of his support for same-sex marriage. He was frontrunner to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate in 2015, but lost out to th

An academic colleague suggested the other day that it would be good to post some recommendations for academic commentary on the same-sex marriage issues, for those who are interested in reading that goes a bit more in-depth than a standard blog post or opinion piece. I thought this was a great idea. I have compiled the following list of reading from recommendations of legal colleagues who, like me, have serious concerns about the proposal to introduce same-sex marriage. In that sense it is not a 'balanced' list. Those who want to find enthusiastic academic support for introducing the reform will not find it hard to do so elsewhere. But some of these pieces may not be so widely read, and deserve to be better known. Some are quite recent. Of course (pardon me for saying so) you will find other material on some of these issues here on this blog, and elsewhere. But these pieces are worth the extra time it will take to read them. (Unfortunately some are not freely availab

On behalf of those Muslim and Christian communities whom we represent, we declare that we believe that there should be no change to the traditional definition of marriage as spelled by the 2004 Amendment incorporated into the Marriage Act 1961 . The amendment reads: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.” We are very concerned about the rush to introduce new legislation allowing for Same-Sex Marriage (“ SSM ”), which is wrong both in policy and in principle . It is wrong in policy because far-reaching changes should not be implemented in haste. Parliamentarians of Australia have a duty to lead the debate over SSM rather than opportunistically seeking to garner votes by jumping onto what seems to be an irresistible bandwagon. They should be encouraging people to reflect upon what marriage is all about, its parameters, its relationship to child-rearing and how children shall be raised outside of the institut

Australian support for marriage equality has apparently,  steadily increased over the years; it has risen from just 38% in 2004. A July 2014 poll showed 52% of Australians supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage . It is unknown whether people answers honestly in polls fearing some form of being labelled a bigot. That question is never asked. The poll was limited to 1000. Research was done by the gay organization - Australian Marriage Equality Despite this support for marriage equality, marriage itself is in decline in Australia . There were just 5.2 marriages per 1000 people in 2014 , down from 6.2 in 2004 and 9.2 in 1950 . Hence, only those who are married should be allowed to vote in the homosexual plebiscite as they are the only one who has invested in this institution. Why should people who disregard even hate marriage have a say in marriage?  Related articles Marriage equality plebiscite: Pyne says Coalition may consult Labor on wording (theguardian.com) Why

It was disappointing to see the Shadow Attorney General assert that same-sex marriage posed no threat to other peoples’ freedoms, Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said today. “Sadly the idea that redefining marriage and freedom for those who disagreed were “unrelated” had no basis in reality both overseas and here in Australia . Mr Dreyfus made the comments the Freedom for Faith conference in Melbourne yesterday. “There is a long list of people in the US, UK and Canada who have been fined, hauled before courts and demonised out of their jobs for their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Mr Shelton said. “Here in Tasmania Archbishop Julian Porteous spent six months tied up in legal action before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission after Australian Marriage Equality urged people to complain about his teaching on marriage. Mr Shelton said Mr Dreyfus was asked about the Trinity Western Law School in Canada who’s graduates