GAY TRUTH

This is the title of an article: Transgender law changes: ‘There’s no freedom to be a bigot under Australian law’ Tasmania wants to drop gender from its birth certificates and some are worried they’ll get sued if they don’t address people in the right way. Will you be able to sue someone for not calling you Mr, Ms or X? So yes, we are now in stupid land . Tasmania’s anti-discrimination laws could leave people open to legal action.  University of Notre Dame senior lecturer Greg Walsh says  "The proposed changes to anti-discrimination legislation would add the term “gender expression” into the act, which is defined as including “personal references that manifest or express gender or gender identity.  This could make it illegal for a person to not accept a transgender person’s gender identity, such as by declining to use their preferred personal pronoun,” Dr Walsh said. We've already seen how this has wreaked havoc in the USA. The wreckage is coming to your workplace.

Tasmanian Parliament’s lower house today voted in favor of a Labor-Greens policy to redefine sex and remove it from birth certificates, due to the support of controversial Liberals’ Speaker Sue Hickey. One person. Because of one person? Tasmania director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Mark Brown said, “It is a sad day when biological truths and foundational freedoms are completely ignored just to pursue a radical ideology – and all without community consultation.  The original bill was only ever meant to bring Tasmanian legislation in line with the Commonwealth Marriage Act, nothing more. Instead, it has become a trojan horse for radical social reform.  Tasmanian Labor and the Greens have today proudly voted against religious freedom and revealed their ideological push towards forcing ministers of religion to solemnise same-sex marriage.”   “In voting down the government’s amendment to bring Tasmanian legislation in line with the marriage act, Labor and the Greens have taken

No sooner than the Tasmanian government tabled its planned changes to the state's anti-discrimination laws, came calls for the proposal to be scrapped . Amid much controversy, the Liberal administration on Tuesday in parliament put forward an amendment Bill, insisting free speech is a fundamental right . Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin highlighted that the changes do not allow for hate speech but would enable church groups the right to convey their views on social issues such as same-sex marriage, without the fear of being reported to the anti-discrimination commissioner. "It is everyone's right to be able to genuinely participate in public debate and discussion, while ensuring that there are appropriate protections in place to stop people going too far," the minister said. But the argument was dismissed by her Labor opposition counterpart Lara Giddings who said the government is refusing to listen to community concerns about the change in law. "The

Homosexuality is defined in the Bible as a sin. In the minds of many people, it is still a sin that God will punish. In the minds of secular people it is a wholesome choice. But it was a crime, when the law stated that homosexuality was against nature and the community and was a deviant behaviour. Nothing has changed, except for liberals they see homosexuality as something good and all charges should be lifted.  Homosexual advocates are calling for gay sex convictions to be abolished nationally, saying people who were convicted before the act was decriminalised are still suffering because of their criminal record. It comes as the Victorian government announced yesterday it would erase convictions for sex between two consenting adult males. The state will introduce laws this year that will provide men with the opportunity to have the convictions wiped from their record. The decriminalisation of gay sex in Australia began in the 1970s, with Tasmania the last state to fall in l

SYDNEY , Australia , November 19, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Members of the State Legislative Council of New South Wales , Australia voted earlier this week by a narrow margin of 21 to 19 to uphold the true meaning of marriage.  Most of the MLCs who voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2013 pointed out that marriage comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and that a state-level redefinition of marriage would not withstand the inevitable legal challenge.  Most of the MLCs who voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2013 pointed out that marriage comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and that a state-level redefinition of marriage would not withstand the inevitable legal challenge. Paul Green of the Christian Democratic Party noted that marriage has been under federal jurisdiction since 1961. "Yet here we are deliberately attempting to create a law that clashes with the Federal Marriage Act. Here we are moving backwards on harmon

Australian Coat of Arms (adopted 1912) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Yesterday the NSW Upper House voted to protect marriage. For the 9th time, the attempt by radical activists to redefine the meaning of marriage in Australia has failed. In a 21-19 vote against the bill, NSW has joined Tasmania and the Commonwealth parliament in rejecting attempts to redefine marriage. Furthermore, the High Court decision , due early December, is likely to declare ACT’s attempt to redefine marriage as invalid. This would likely settle the matter for good, protecting marriage from any future attacks via state or territory legislatures. This would make the 10th such time activists have been defeated. Keep up the effort to defend children’s birth-right to their mother and father. However homosexual advocates don't obey nor support the rule of law. They care little about anything except themselves. They will continue to push their isolated immoral views, playing the victims, blame suicides,

Below is a copy of the ABC News Australia Facts Check on a statement by the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister holds a Judeo- Christian view of marriage established by the Bible and the church. The Bible does events which list polgamy though not approved by God but are seen as acts of rebellion, yet God showed grace. This nuance is simply ignored by quoting a liberal source. Facts Check is supposedly meant to be neutral balanced provide accurate information, judge information given by politicians, etc to check its truth-worthiness and accuracy. However, this article clearly portrays bias, lack of full perspective in forming an argument and at most deceptive in terms of its viewpoint but upholds the position held by the ABC which is pro-homosexual, anti-Christian and extreme left. The ABC constantly only presents one view on this topic constantly. Tony Abbott incorrect on the history of marriage Updated  4 hours 13 minutes ago PHOTO:  Tony Abbott incorrect on the history

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

Only nine politicians in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly voted last week to legalise homosexual marriage on behalf of all Australians. The nine were a predictable Labor-Green alliance and were opposed by eight Liberals. And also this week the Labor-Green government in Tasmania tried and failed to revive its recently rejected bill for same-sex marriage. A political party is in terminal decline when common sense amongst its leaders is no longer common. Throughout recorded history, common sense has understood that marriage is not just about adults – it’s about the needs and rights of children, too. Not so with new Labor, whose leaders have succumbed to the adult-only narcissism of “marriage equality”. Union leader Paul Howes told the Labor party this month “you do not belong with us” if you oppose the “fair go” of letting two men marry. But nowhere in his speech was there any consideration of a fair go for children created within such a marriage, who are forc