GAY TRUTH

Why would 12 Republican senators vote in favor of a bill which “provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages”? How could almost 25% of all Republican senators agree to back this? The issue, of course, is not their backing of interracial marriages. No major leader with any credibility or respected platform is saying such marriages should not be recognized by law. In fact, it is misleading even to put interracial marriages, which contain the fundamental building blocks of marriage and family, namely a man and a woman, in the same category as same-sex “marriages,” which by definition omit either the man or the woman. Rejection of interracial marriages is a matter of bigotry, not biology. The issue is these Republican leaders offering their names in support of these same-sex unions. What could possibly motivate them? Accepting Obergefell and Thinking This Bill Protects Religious Liberties  In the words of Sen. Mitt Romney, one of the aforementioned 12 and himself a d

The Arizona Supreme Court issued a major ruling this week upholding the right of Christian artists to decline to use their talents to promote a same-sex 'wedding,' which the city of Phoenix said violated an anti-discrimination ordinance that makes it illegal to refuse services to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs. In its ruling, the majority wrote, "beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some. But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone.” While we commend the Arizona Supreme Court for their ruling in favor of artists Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who design custom wedding invitations, we take issue with the characterization of their beliefs as outdated and even offensive. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman has existed since the beginning of time and never goes out of date. It is unive

With the commencement of the legislation adopting same-sex marriage for Australia today, 9 December, it seems worthwhile to note some more implications, following my initial comments on the change. The two I would like to address here are the changes to the “monitum”, the summary of Australian marriage law required to be recited by some celebrants; and the possible issues surrounding what I will call “rogue priests”, clergy in one of the mainstream Christian denominations who may wish to solemnise same-sex marriages when their denomination adheres to the historic Christian position that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The “monitum” This is a curious word which will not be familiar to most people who are not marriage celebrants! In fact even the definition given in the standard Oxford English Dictionary refers to its original usage in the Roman Catholic Church to refer to a “warning” given by ecclesiastical authorities, but does not note the use of the word in the ma

Four years ago, amid much uncertainty, 400 British members of parliament voted to redefine marriage in the United Kingdom . Then prime minister David Cameron announced that, despite having made no mention of the issue in his party’s pre-election manifesto, it would be MP ’s who decided the fate of marriage. Now, it’s Australia’s turn to choose. There’s one key difference. Unlike in Britain, it will be the people who decide. Everyone agrees, whether they admit it or not. This is a decision of enormous significance. Therefore, it seems sensible to analyse the consequences of the potential change, within nations in which redefinition has previously been carried out. In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined. Gender: Current Conservative Prime Minister, T

WHY ARE JOURNALIST LYING ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE? First, the media lied that Melbourne was “plastered” with homophobic posters by “no” campaigners. Channel 10 even faked a picture of one . Now, the media is spreading more untruths, false claims that three women in a “no” campaign advertisement are liars. Last week, the Coalition for Marriage aired a TV commercial arguing for a no vote on same-sex marriage. It featured three women: Heidi McIvor , a Sale pastor; Cella White , a Melbourne mother; and Dr Pansy Lai , a Sydney GP and founder of the Australian Chinese for Families Association. The women made two claims, in particular, that set off a furore. First, White, warning how far the same-sex marriage push would go, talked of her son’s experience at Frankston High: “The school told my son that he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted.” Then Lai added: “Kids in year 7 are being asked to role-play being in a same-sex relationship.” Since then, the women

“ Don’t LGBTI couples deserve equality? ” Every man and woman in Australia needs to know they’re equally valuable to God . This applies to LGBTI people just as it does for everyone else. So Christians are against any law that unfairly discriminates against an LGBTI person.  We actively supported the Same-Sex Relationships reforms in 2008 because it provided equal treatment, such as with laws to do with superannuation.  Minister Tanya Plibersek said at the time, “We removed every piece of legal discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples on the statute books”.1 It was the right thing to do for individuals.  Today the debate isn’t really about discrimination – as Minister Plibersek says, the discrimination had been removed. It’s about changing the definition of marriage .  And when that happens, it could actually create new forms of discrimination. That’s because marriage is a compound right: the right of two adults to commit to a binding u