Altar Tactics on Gay Marriage

muppets in loveWhen institutions that are part of our civilised heritage and ought to be above ideological taint are captured by minority pressure groups, the correct thing for the conservative (or anyone of commonsense) to do is to abandon them. Walk away. Act as though they didn’t exist anymore. Leave the ideologues to infest them like vultures and jackals in the ruins of some sacked city of antiquity.

The ABC a miasma of Leftist bias and inaccuracy? Don’t watch or listen to it.

None of the national broadcaster’s programmes — particularly its television current affairs and “comedy”, which tend to be rip-offs of BBC productions without the talent — are so compelling that time spent absorbing them wouldn’t be more profitably expended on a good book. There are plenty of balanced alternatives to television and radio for finding out what’s going on in the world.

Conservative politicians in particular should ignore the ABC. Those who can’t resist its siren call to be interviewed have only their lust for publicity to blame if they are put in the stocks by shrill, half-educated harridans who don’t know the meaning of objectivity (and have probably been taught in the course of their half-educations that there is no such thing).

The “quality” press more like Pravda in its heyday, with fashion tips and burble about food thrown in to leaven a diet of poster headlines written in the ink of malice? Join the trend and don’t buy it.

Your children taught nothing in class except white guilt and climate change? Home-school them.

Don’t go to university unless it’s to study medicine or engineering or some other matter-of-fact discipline that hasn’t been distorted ideologically by left-wing “educators” (not that they haven’t tried, with thelionising of “queer” mathematicians and “Afrocentric” physics).

Above all, avoid the humanities like the plague. Teach yourself, as a famous British imprint exhorted its readers when going to university was still the exception! A liberal classical self-education is fun and fixes itself in the mind. It is also universal, as opposed to nonsense about gender and post-structuralism, or whatever this week’s prevailing academic fads. It should never be forgotten that German universities in the 1930s taught Aryan superiority as a serious subject.

With education and the media captured (or in Gramscian terms “marched through”) it looks as though marriage will be the next citadel to fall. Of course this has now happened in lots of places, and would already have happened here if the media’s wishful thinking could be transmuted into law. How should conservatives respond? Well, if they’re thinking of getting married to found families and bring up children and they don’t want their marriages equated with the unions of gays and lesbians on vanity trips, then there’s a simple solution: Don’t get married. Leave marriage to the pressure groups that want to change its definition to include themselves.

In rejecting marriage as the foundation of a family one wouldn’t be doing anything more than nearly half the child-rearing heterosexual population is already doing. In Australia, according to statistics recently quoted in The Australian, one-third of all babies are now born out of what used to be called wedlock (in England there will soon be more children born outside marriage than in it). I know we’re always being told that marriage is the stable foundation of a home etc., but (a) often it’s clearly not, and hasn’t been in Australia since Senator Lionel Murphy and others got to work on it during the Whitlam revolution and made divorce a simple matter of dumping one’s spouse, with or without the spouse’s approval; while feminist pressure turned ending a marriage into a financial trap for husbands and their superannuation; and (b) no one can deny that there are plenty of stable loving families where Mum and Dad haven’t tied the knot (look around among your acquaintances).  Not every unmarried family is ipso facto dysfunctional.

Not get married? While enthusiasm for marriage has flagged except among gays and lesbians, who have suddenly discovered themselves to be its keenest supporters, a not inconsiderable number of people still see a sacramental element in marriage and believe that to have sex and children outside marriage is wrong. What about them?

The answer is just as simple as not getting married: Don’t get “state-married”. You can still have your marriage in church, but it ought to be purely a religious ritual, like baptism, not something that carries the imprimatur of the state. For that to happen, the Christian churches would be well advised to renounce their faculty to celebrate state-sanctioned marriages. Clergy would give up their licences to act as agents of the state but would continue to celebrate Christian opposite-sex marriages for their flock, as they do in France and other places where the marriage that counts in law, as opposed to the eyes of God, is the secular one, celebrated separately from the religious rite.  Ecclesiastical abandonment of the legally delegated faculty to solemnise weddings would pull the rug out from under the feet of same-sex marriage agents provocateurs, who will undoubtedly seek to use the law to strong-arm clergy into conducting their pseudo-nuptials or face prosecution for “discrimination”. (editor’s note: Indeed, only yesterday in the Silly Morning Herald, alleged comedian Tom Ballard telegraphed the agenda with the threat below. Do notice the adolescent vulgarity and terminal narcissism of the final sentence.)

ballard agenda

But what if you’re not a churchgoer and wish to have your opposite-sex relationship legally recognised while leaving marriage, as newly re-defined, to the ideologues? Here one might suggest recycling the concept of the “civil union”. Civil unions were briefly the Holy Grail of gay and lesbian “equality” campaigners. When such unions became obtainable, they were, consequently, instantly superseded by bells-and-orange-blossom matrimony as the next bridge to conquer, civil unions being now derided as something cooked up by homophobes to fob off lovestruck GLBT couples and deny them their right to full wedded bliss. With the right to be joined together in an alleged real marriage in sight, the up-to-date gay or lesbian wouldn’t touch a civil union with a bargepole. What better vehicle to carry on the traditional concept of marriage without the risk of same-sex campaigners trying to muscle in? True, civil unions are not at present possible in all states, but bringing them in where they are currently unavailable ought to be politically and legally as easy as, in the time-honoured though no doubt infant-abusive phrase, taking candy from a baby, especially when compared to what a minority of same-sex marriage campaigners has managed to achieve in the face of millennia of universal matrimonial practice and tradition.

When, as will inevitably happen, same-sex marriage campaigners and leftists in general, like spoilt children discarding toys they clamoured to have, tire of their triumph and relegate marriage to what they considered it before – domestic prison, instrument of patriarchal oppression and so forth – perhaps that ancient institution, freed from ideological contestation, will re-establish itself among the wider community as a quaint retro reminder of the way things used to be.

Christopher Akehurst, a frequent Quadrant contributor, blogs at Argus

6 thoughts on “Altar Tactics on Gay Marriage

  • gardner.peter.d says:

    I like the idea of churches renouncing their state marriage licences. It has been proposed in England and I believe some churches have don so. But the established Anglican Church is a fairly limp affair in England and given its exemption in the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act it will remain so on this matter.

    However, the damage comes in other areas, eg., employment, business – the now infamous bakery case – education and so on, sometimes via court cases, sometimes by the application of policy in government agencies, quangos, academic and other institutions damaging the ability of non-conformists to engage with these organisations in their supposed businesses and purposes.

    One significant difference between Australia and UK is that de facto relationships have no legal standing in UK. Another is that Civil Partnerships in UK have the same legal status as marriage.

    Next steps? Polygamy is usually the next step. During UK’s election campaign the Green Party leader said she was open to the idea. One South American country (I forget which) has already moved on to include animals but in what category precisely I am not sure.

    It is significant that in both America and UK same sex marriage was introduced by the back door. Judicial activism over-ruling parliament in America’s case, and, in UK’s case, David Cameron sneaking it into parliament without mentioning it in the Queen’s speech, because of a commitment one of his government made (with his blessing) in an EU committee to introduce legislation by June 2013, then curtailing both debate in Parliament and wider consultation. But I have to admit despite the breaches of protocol and practice the UK parliament would have passed it anyway, but even that was against the majority of public opinion.

    I think real marriage is a wonderful and unique union that we should celebrate. In fact many people do, even in Australia. All it needs is a new name. Any ideas?

  • Jody says:

    It’s the strong-arm tactic of bullying and coercion by threats of court action which makes me very angry in all of this, coupled with industrial-strength entitlement. We are now, after all, not so very far from the authoritarian state; poliburo-style propaganda in schools, threats and sanctions, group-think, government owned media saturation of the one message, government media setting the agenda (‘asylum seekers’ etc.) a them-and-us mentality of class warfare, a one-shoe-fits all cultural identity of suppressing the dominant group, attempts to compress the incomes of the population to a lowest common factor (now you’re ‘wealthy’ if you earn $75,000 in your super fund – what does that say about the basic wage of $35.000pa?) and, finally, a culture of grievance and victimhood which has sapped our universities, communities and many institutions of their vigour and individuality.

    We offered our good will to homosexuals and their partners, having appropriately ridden ourselves of homophobia. They, like the spoiled brats mentioned in the foregoing essay, now won’t be satisfied unless they have more ‘treats’. And it’s so much easier to blame the dominant social groups and the Murdoch media for perpetuating the status quo. This red herring has the effect of shining a light away from the noisy pressure group and to ascribe guilt to those who are white, successful, heterosexual and religious. Racism by any other name.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    Yes. Christian Marriage.

  • en passant says:

    This has always been one of those kindergarten tantrum topics which I am reasonably sure would be of little concern to the vast majority of Australians. Frankly, if this is the core focus of someone’s wellbeing then time to depart this Earth for Paradise.
    However, what does bother me is the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences as this is writ large over these ill-thought through proposals.
    For instance during the inevitable divorce proceedings, who gets to claim the ‘wife’s’ larger share and alimony so they can stay home and look after the poodles?
    If this mutation is accepted, then another thing that has been brought up also becomes an inevitability: polygamous marriage as then muslims cry discrimination.
    There are many such illegal ‘marriages’ arrangements already, all of which are deliberately overlooked by Centrelink as we, the taxpaying monogamous fools they prey on, support the lifestyle of the law-breaking profligate. Time to start applying existing laws and winding back PCCS (Permanent Centrelink Customer Status) by sending long term unemployed to the far reaches of this continent on six-month contracts to build ‘sustainability projects’ – as was done in the Depression and after WW1 (when Alexandra Drive in Melbourne and the World Heritage Great Ocean Road were created). It really does not matter what they build, so long as we stop the free handouts and break up their comfortably parasitic lifestyle. Anyone who has been unemployed and on benefits for an accumulated 12-months should have their benefits withdrawn and offered a contract in a remote place. They are free not to accept, and I am free not to support them. This should also apply to the disability pensioners who should also be found things to do in line with their incapabilities. My personal choice is digging the Alice Springs to Kalgoorlie Canal. It is something future generations will marvel at …

  • MickL says:

    Churches should get out of marriage now? Really? Now?

    Not when marriage started being between a man and only one woman?

    Not when marriage stopped being arranged by your parents to ensure property was passed on to people they approved of?

    Now when marriage started being about something as frivolous and fleeting as love?

    Not when women no longer had to obey their husband?

    Not when children stopped being the default product of marriage?

    Not when the divorce rate exceeded 10%. Or 20%. Or 30%?

    Just because the queers want it? That’s why they should get out? Really?

    Heterosexuals redefined marriage. If you showed someone from 500 years ago today’s concept of marriage they wouldn’t recognise it. Even someone form the 1950s would be astonished at what straight marriage is these days. But the minute the gays get involved the institute of marriage will run completely to seed? This is not a sensible position. Marriage is already a subject for a reality TV series and I note that this wasn’t sufficient reason for the churches to walk away. Don’t know why you are so worried about the homosexuals, they could hardly damage the institute of marriage more than the rest of straight people already have.

Leave a Reply