Shotgun ‘Marriage’

gay macho cakePicture yourself at home watching television when your favourite program is interrupted by a news bulletin. A breathless reporter announces, “We can now call the final tally in the plebiscite to change the Marriage Act: Australians have voted by a clear majority to allow people of the same sex to marry.” The camera scans across a jubilant multitude, hugging, kissing, screaming, dancing, amidst a sea of rainbow flags and banners declaring “All You Need Is Love”, “All Love Is Equal”, “It’s time for Marriage Equality”. A microphone is pointed at an excited reveler who says “this changes everything, Australia will never be the same again”.

How would you feel? If this scene makes you uneasy, brace yourself. It may be drawing closer. In a recent interview, Attorney-General George Brandis said the same-sex marriage (SSM) plebiscite will come soon. Brandis told reporters he has re-thought the subject and, “after reflection”, no longer opposes the change. Perhaps this vindicates the tactics of those traditionalist MPs who engineered the flick to a plebiscite. On questions surrounding sexual identity, our politicians are starting to look like a herd of spooked cattle.

On the other hand, Brandis also said he believes the plebiscite will be carried, which no doubt figured in his “reflection”. In this he is expressing the conventional wisdom around media and political circles. What if Brandis and the conventional wisdom are right? Many SSM opponents would argue there is nothing to lose in forcing a plebiscite. Since more MPs are drifting over to the other side, marriage reform appears inevitable if left to a parliamentary vote. A plebiscite offers at least some hope of keeping the status quo, in that a vigorous “no” campaign will expose the public to a range of arguments they haven’t considered.

What has passed for debate so far is a sham. Using their preponderant media power, the SSM lobby and broader Left have suppressed the contra case with jackboot tactics. They have shrunk, trivialised and obscured the issues at stake. A contrasting approach came, ironically, from Labor’s Joe Bullock, who recently resigned his senate seat in protest at the ALP’s pro-SSM position. Bullock told senators “homosexual marriage [is] a question which I regard as having fundamental significance to the future shape of our society”. He is right, even as others have received less attention for saying the same thing.

It’s often said that the impacts of SSM are largely confined to the gay community (and other groups represented by the weird acronym LGBTQI). But amending the definition of marriage will send cultural messages reverberating across society. One message is that it makes no difference whether or not children are raised by their two progenitors (allowing for the fact that it isn’t possible in every case). This weakens the once valued link between procreation and parenthood, taking it to breaking point. Another message is that fatherhood and motherhood have no distinctive characteristics, and can be replaced by some generic concept of co-parenthood. That such values are damaging to children is consistent with a body of research, particularly children born into less affluent conditions.

These messages hasten our transition from a “parent society” to a nanny state, since failures in family formation attract rising levels of bureaucratic intervention. Forced to abandon their old dream of nationalising the instruments of economic life, the Left has turned its sights on nationalising aspects of domestic life. As Bullock and others suggest, the consequences for the economic and cultural shape of our society are far-reaching. And it’s being done to meet the demands of a group who make up 1 percent or less of all Australian couples. Judged purely as social policy, it’s irrational and reckless.

Whether this can be impressed on enough of the public by plebiscite day, however, is uncertain at best. After decades of media conditioning backed up by the omnipresence of gay themes in popular culture – just check the latest crop of movies and television shows – many Australians see SSM in terms of the “fair go”. Unlike a referendum under Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which stipulates a majority of voters in a majority of states, the outcome will be decided by a bare national majority. To a large extent, in other words, it will be decided in metropolitan Sydney and Melbourne.

For traditionalists, the plebiscite is a high-stakes gamble. Any calculation on the part of those who engineered it that there is nothing to lose, or it doesn’t matter, if SSM comes via a parliamentary vote or via a popular vote (followed by a parliamentary vote) may be wrong.

A people’s vote in favour of SSM will be an immense propaganda coup for the Left. They will call it a watershed in Australian social history. They will claim a popular mandate, a green-light, for the whole sexual diversity agenda, including the next phase of activism bearing on school curricula and anti-discrimination law. They will say the country consigned its Judeo-Christian heritage to history and marched into a bright progressive future. Expect to hear such claims at high rotation in the wake of a yes vote. It won’t matter that the assertions are false. Most of the people voting for SSM will have done so for no larger social or cultural reason. It’s just that, as things now stand, the Left has enough media reach to engrave its spin on the public consciousness.

The propaganda dividends from a simple parliamentary vote would be substantial, but far more restricted in scope. After all, it would be the work of politicians, more easily limited to its own terms as a legislative amendment for a specific purpose.

The MPs who conceived the plebiscite were well intentioned and their opposition to SSM is sound. If the plebiscite fails, well and good. But if it carries, the Left will have acquired a big new club with which to bash the defenders of religious liberty, freedom of speech and parental authority. This could be the worst defeat for a conservative vision of Australia since Whitlam entered The Lodge.

36 thoughts on “Shotgun ‘Marriage’

  • Rob Ellison says:

    The French ban on the burkini illustrates the lack understanding of of sacred, enlightenment democratic principles. They seem to believe that the secular state mandates against any remotely religious expression in public. The intent of freedom of religion is to prevent the state from making religious laws. Instead the religion of militant atheism aims to legislate against all other religious religious expressions. Governments refraining from making religious law is of course a fundamental of the Australian constitution. Making a law on marriage is a law on religion and thus unconstitutional – a breach of fundamental Scottish enlightenment freedoms.

    People are free to worship, associate, behave as they wish – within the limits of others people freedoms of course. I’m not convinced that conservatives understand this true liberal perspective. If you are arguing against equality before the law – you need something of equal gravitas. At the moment you got bugger all.

    • Jody says:

      I think “equality before the law” is an abstract principle which does not nearly adequately explain social complexity and outcomes. I think it’s a bit of a glib line like the term “equality” generally. Same with “freedom”. What does THAT mean? I argued recently to somebody at the IPA that if you want people to support the idea of freedom and freedom of speech you need to explain to them FIRST what you mean because everybody has a different idea about what freedom means. To the Chinese it means economic freedom, buying power and amassing wealth, to the African American it means ‘equality of opportunity’. To many countries and peoples it means “self determination”. So, I don’t buy the “equality before the law” argument.

      My neighbour didn’t want me to use my air-conditioner during the day because he regarded it as noisy (the sea is twice as noisy here). I was forced to move it or turn it off. I chose the latter and it rusted where it sat, unused ever over a period of 8 years. New neighbours have moved in and they have a dog which barks all day long. I’m trying to act to stop it but an stymied by the local council at every turn because “that’s how dogs communicate”. In my desperation to retaliate I’m playing classical music very loudly. When I get complaints I say, “that’s how Brahms communicates”. So much for your ‘equality before the law’; one neighbour successfully prevents me from making noise with my air-conditioner but the other neighbour is protected by the authorities because he chooses to own a dog. “Equality before the law” is a chimera and a fraud. And, for me, freedom means having a life of peaceful amenity in my own home. Ain’t gooona happen.

    • ianl says:

      > “Making a law on marriage is a law on religion and thus unconstitutional … ”

      Well, good luck with that …

      The author of this essay is certainly correct about the nearly unfettered power of the MSM. People believe whatever the MSM tells them (this is denied, but denial doesn’t alter the fact), even 10 contradictory things before breakfast. It’s relentlessly destructive and panders simultaneously to the unbridled vanity of the MSM denizens and the “feelings” of about 50% of the population.

      There is no way out of this; it has been a self-evident growth for over 20 years and has now reached the point of no return. Brexit was a brief and glorious flash-in-the-pan, but the real lesson for the MSM/bureaucracy/political class from Brexit is never, ever ask the hoi-polloi real questions. The plebiscite will not happen. Whether the Libs want to or not, holding it is too fraught. The minor fracas to be caused by a swift, sneaky passage through both Houses of Parliament is reckoned as much easier to manage than a noisy, unpredictable plebiscite.

      • lloveday says:

        Justice Gerard Brennan (Keating appointment as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia) is of the opinion that it is “beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate for any other form of marriage besides that encompassed by its traditional definition”, viz unconstitutional.

        This is not some right-wing homophobic bigot as we are called by those such as Wong who voted just 12 years ago for the current law, but a Labor appointment to the highest judicial office in Australia; the fight is far from lost.

        • ianl says:

          > “the fight is far from lost”

          Fair enough, although I don’t believe that.

          Brennan indeed opined that, but it actually needs a majority of the High Court to pass from opinion to law. As I said in response to Rob Ellison’s comment, good luck with that. I’m not interested in “right-wing homophobic bigots” but rather the power of the MSM to frame the question in those terms. This is far more dangerous than your comment admits; Waffle understands this.

          • lloveday says:

            My guess is every reader already knows “… it actually needs a majority of the High Court to pass from opinion to law”, but I can’t be sure that someone was not informed by your words.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    This opinion by John Muscat is on target. Bullseye!
    But a suggestion for Rob Ellison if he thinks the Burkini is ‘a remotely religious expression in public’. Read the excellent item on the Burkini by Jennifer Oriel in The Australian 29/08 with the subheading “There is no place for such a symbol so at odds with free thinking Western society”. The burkha – ‘the hideoous garment imposed by sharia police in Islamic states on the absurd pretext that women are immodest unless they walk in a shroud. Seventh century beliefs say ‘a woman’s honour is directly tied to her clothes and a man is not responsible for his actions if he is tempted by a woman’. So the burkha and the burkini are there to stop the invitation to rape, and if rape occurs it is the woman who receives the 100 lashes according to sharia. Do we want any of that in Australia?
    The first President of the Turkish Republic eliminated the burkha by legislating that only prostitutes were allowed to wear it in public.

    • Advertise@AustralianByte.com says:

      I think the Burkha is about nothing else than controlling a Muslim woman’s sexuality. If you are Islam you wish to separate the women from Kaffir. Children should only have parents that are Muslim other arrangements are dilute Islam. Female circumcision has the same purpose. Islam dictates this and if you are a believer it is perfectly reasonable. I would doubt Muslims really approve of the Burkini.

      On a beach in such clothing they certainly would get attention from Kaffir. That is not desirable for the spread of Islam.

  • Warty says:

    I have come to the conclusion that every time I think or say that the movement against SSM is growing, I may just be setting myself up for great disappointment, and that it is best not to be dogmatic about these things; but I noticed and read a few things that might be cause for optimism.
    You may have seen Rev. Ian Powell, mentioned in The Australian today, and enjoying a brief mention on the ABC, much to my surprise. I know the man well, but that’s by the by. Anyway, he confronted Bill Shorten (who did his best to avoid him) about the way he appeared to be increasing the divisiveness of the SSM issue by directing hateful language towards the opponents of SSM, painting them all as homophobes. Mr Shorten angrily demanded that Powell not misquote him, but when Reverend Powell asked him to state exactly what he did say, he couldn’t and did the typical polly soft shoe shuffle trick. Personally I saw the interception as a positive and Shorten looked irritated and uncomfortable.
    Another positive has been the whole Safe Schools saga, which I feel has had a negative impact on the same sex campaign, and has given greater impetus to the current campaign to stop the plebiscite dead in its track, probably because Labor, the Greens, Hinch and Xenophon feel they’ll lose.
    Finally, I believe a coalition of more that 40 religious, ethnic and charity groups has formed and signed a ‘memorandum of understanding’ supporting the traditional definition of marriage. In calling themselves Australian for Marriage, they intend to form a powerful coalition to oppose the equally powerful SSM lobbyists.
    Having said all that, I feel that the ‘progressives’ ultimate aim is to tear down as many of the edifices of Western Civilization as they can. They started with the Church and have managed to stop religious education in state schools. The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, and Salvation Army have been racked by child abuse scandals, with the ABC being at the forefront in the effort to humiliate them. Multi Culturalism, promoted as a positive, as a corner stone of Australian society, is another Trojan horse: instead of it being a celebration of the diversity of cultural origins, it seems now to promote divisiveness, particularly with regards to Islam. And the left’s perverse romance with the very ideology that secretly detests everything they stand for, again Islam, is designed to promote a ‘religion’ that aims to destroy sectarianism. I think we are living through particularly difficult times, and I have to admit I am fearful as to how it is all going to end up.

    • ianl says:

      > ” … I am fearful as to how it is all going to end up”

      At the risk of repeating myself, there is a madness now stalking the lands. It may dissipate, but the odds are that it will break out like a new strain of Ebola, so it appears to me. Too many powder kegs and lit fuses around to feel sanguine about.

    • Jim Kapetangiannis says:

      Don’t be fearful Warty.

      The Left and Islam certainly do want to destroy every foundation of Western Civilization and replace it with a hitherto ill-defined (if indeed it is ever really definable) totalitarian state which they believe will be some kind of earthly utopia. It has been said before but it is worthy of re-iteration. The rock on which Western Civilization is built is not that there will be an earthly utopia but a heavenly one. In the meantime, on our transitory journey, we throw ourselves wholeheartedly into the service of others to make their similarly, transitory journeys as comfortable and “blessed” as they can possibly be. Of the many “loves” that men and women are capable of, the greatest will always be the one that sacrifices self for the sake of others.

      That desire to serve others has taken many centuries of struggle to bear fruit in western societies but like everything else, the fruit is subject to rot and decay if it is not properly cared for. In our case, the Left and Islam have taken a metaphorical axe to root and branch because it offends them to their core that there should be higher allegiances than allegiance to their own narrow and deluded causes. This is expressed in the desire to undo nature and tradition in the SSM debate as well as control the power of ideas not their own through limitations on free speech. We live in strange and dangerous times. Never mind, the fruit we let fall and rot will flourish in new plantings elsewhere (for example consider the unheralded Christianisation of China concurrently with her rise as the dominant world power). Human history is naught but the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires so we should not be surprised to see it happening in our own time.

      It is to me the height of stupidity to waste energy and lives in pursuit of dream that one will only “enjoy” (I have to laugh at this point) for a few short years, if at all. The problem with all “dreams” including the dream of heaven on earth, is that they vaporise upon waking. But like I said at the beginning, don’t be fearful; the true victory is running the race and fighting the good fight.

    • acarroll says:

      Multiculturalism was always there to promote divisiveness. It went against our better instincts but the post WW2 genocide propaganda had its effect in demoralising us, getting us to think that perhaps the very fact of being European makes you racist and potentially a genocider of whatever number (a large number of course!) of Jews, gypsies, etc. So we reluctantly “tolerated” it.

      Now we’ll have to pay for the consequences of being divided and conquered due to man’s base tribal nature. Multiculturalism, in its extreme, is a form of biological warfare similar to the tactic used by the Assyrians, Medes and Persians and more recently Yugoslavia to keep their empires/states under control: divert their subjects’ attentions away from the tyranny above by forcing them to contend with the daily inter-ethnic competition for resources.

  • gary@feraltek.com.au says:

    It’s called equality because it isn’t. If it was equal it wouldn’t need to be called equal.

    • Jody says:

      Orwellian. And just as the ‘progressives’ have wholesale societal change on their agenda it is incumbent upon the conservatives to keep doggedly chipping away at 18C – just as the magnificent Cory is doing. Keep at it and don’t stop. Chip, chip, chip. It’s standard issue of the Left.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    It is heralded with glee by supporters and begrudgingly accepted by opponents that SSM enjoys the approval of the majority of Australians. Events of late put a question mark on that assumption. If supporters are so absolutely certain of victory, why are they getting ever more desperate to avoid a plebiscite? Their expressed concern over offensive “homophobic” language during a campaign rings rather hollow, ridiculous, in fact. “Sensitive gay youths are likely to be driven to suicide” by such language, they preposterously claim. Others say they are being “ responsible” by opposing the popular vote due to the cost involved. They know very well that it is rather negligible in the scheme of things. It is ever more obvious that supporters are more than a little afraid that the majority will vote no. Responding to surveys is one thing, opining in the privacy of the election booth is quite another. Many good conservatives would be reluctant to publicly state their opposition to marriage “equality”, yet they unreservedly disapprove the notion of homosexual marriage.

    • Jody says:

      The Left has created “Generation Snowflake” and they feel incumbent upon themselves to now continue “nannying” them. I prefer Clint Eastwood’s “Generation Pussy”, actually.

  • acarroll says:

    It has probably been expressed before but I’ll state it again, the point needs to be made to the masses that once you decouple marriage from reproduction — it’s original contract — then you open the flood gates for all kinds of social depravity. The Left most certainly will, with the aid of nation wreckers like George Soros and his OSF, start moving to support:

    1) Incestuous marriage (consenting adults, all love is equal)
    2) Underage marriage (multicultural society, can’t judge other cultures, all love is equal after all)
    3) Beastiality (Marxist Professor Trotsky confirms goats have no agency, so no need to consent; all animals are equal but some are more equal than others)

    etc etc.

    • Patrick McCauley says:

      … and the children will not have parents to teach them who they are, and where they come from, and what is right and wrong.

      • Jody says:

        In other words, more of the same!:-)

        • acarroll says:

          Yes, unfortunately that rings true even now, and this is the shape of the brainwashing narrative involved:

          If you’re of European descent then your history is evil and so were all your ancestors — better show to the world how non-racist you are by accepting your demographic replacement without complaint and paying for their dozen children families at the expense of your own, who after all are also likely racist from birth. All your wealth has been stolen from some poor brown person somewhere anyway.

          If you disagree, you’re a hateful white supremacist bigot writing hate from your parents’ basement. You should be locked up.

    • acarroll says:



      Is an interesting explanation of how the slippery slope works.

    • Jody says:

      No; I think you go too far with this. Apparently Tim Wilson was in parliament yesterday and during his maiden speech in the Reps he talked about same sex marriage and was in tears. He’s a wonderful human being and I don’t want to denigrate his obvious sincerity or his long-term relationship. suspect that if you drilled right down to the heart of the matter you’d find it’s not simply legislation to enable ‘marriage’ that the reason for his tears, but a more fundamental anxiety about the nature of that relationship and its living reality compared to that of heterosexual married couples. In that sense I share his emotions.

      • acarroll says:

        Emotions are exactly what they’re using to manipulate you into making a decision that’s irreversible and wholly irresponsible to future generations of Australians.

        • Warty says:

          Indeed. The number of parents, whose children have turned out gay, who then reverse everything they’ve said or thought about gays would form a list reaching up the street and back (I was going to say ‘to Wollongong and back’, but readers in Hobart might not know what I was talking about). One’s emotional connection to the issue still doesn’t address the enormous damage being done to society as a whole. One cannot help but notice that the Muslim community are strangely quiet about all this. Are the (controlling) Islamists amongst them simply waiting for the whole edifice to collapse? Has the trickle-charge effect of years of MSM, and the ambiguous ads proliferating on T.V. begun to make Wooly Woofterism finally seem like two blokes having a cup of coffee together, or a beer? Perhaps eating the same Subway together might begin to raise eyebrows, but a coffee?

          • acarroll says:

            Yes the amount of money thrown into the LGBTQWERTY++ agenda and propaganda is staggering. Some of it selfish intent from a group of people with by definition very little attachment to the future generations of their people (eliminating themselves from the gene pool for the most part), some of it from emotionally manipulated “useful idiots”, but the majority from a psychopathic elite who seem intent on making the Western world burn.

            Are Muslims waiting for the collapse? I’d say 100% — any fool can see, given the trend, it’s almost a certainty that Western civilisation will fall.

      • Stephen Due says:

        Yes of course the real problem is a the actual nature of relationship compared to that of heterosexual married couples. Because, as the old song says, “Man is for the woman made and the woman for the man”.
        But not even the Australian parliament can make ‘black’ into ‘white’ by passing a law. To weep over the fact that you cannot be married as a man and woman if both of you are men or both are women seems rather infantile to me.
        From a rational perspective the push for same sex marriage has all the appearances of mass hysteria, weeping MPs included. And in the end will it make any difference to ‘gay’ couples? No. They will still not really be gay and they will still not really be married.

  • Meniscus says:

    This article beautifully rips the left’s gay marriage plebiscite arguments to shreds: https://themarcusreview.com/2016/08/31/the-lefts-gay-marriage-plebiscite-bull/

  • Homer Sapien says:

    To quote good old Albert “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Hence gay marriage will be a sure thing….

  • Jody says:

    Cruella de Ville (aka Sarah Hanson-Young) has been talking about it on Sky this afternoon; she’s getting really angry and throwing her toys out of the cot.

  • gavanhe@gmail.com says:

    If ssm ever gets the green light in a plebiscite or a parliamentary vote, we can then sit back and watch the lawyers having a field day. One thing not considered much is that the word marriage occurs in the constitution so as to allow federal parliament to make laws in respect of this institution. When this word was used more than a century ago it was inconceivable that it would mean anything other than the joining of two people of the opposite sex.
    Now we need to keep in mind that any word used in the constitution must keep its original meaning ie. the definition cannot be changed at the whim of the present day unless we decide to do so via a referendum.
    So considering this, even if we have a positive outcome for a plebiscite that allows ssm, then it will be off to the courts for a constitutional battle.
    Not sure whether too many people have thought this through.

  • rosross says:

    Same-sex couples can marry and have been able to do so for some years – in civil unions. Most religions will not marry them but no religion would marry me either and heterosexuals don’t have an automatic right to a religious marriage.

    The hidden agenda on the same-sex marriage campaign is the issue for many of those who have reservations. Same-sex couples can get married, so they don’t need to change anything for them to marry, and on a few counts, they may, in some States, be denied equal rights as partners and that needs to change. But the real agenda is that of defining same-sex marriage as absolutely equal with heterosexual marriage and that has enormous implications for the rights of children, particularly in an age where anyone can pretty much buy an egg, sperm and womb to manufacture their own child to order.

    To say that two fathers or two mothers are equal to a mother and a father is to deny reality of biology and humanity. None of us exist without a biological mother and father even if they are not the ones to raise us. All of us have a right to being raised by replacements for those missing parents – the male and the female, equally important.

    In truth, it is impossible to have two fathers and two mothers and that is why, pretending that one can, is a denial of the human rights of the child involved.

    By all means, change the marriage act to give same-sex partners equal rights but, when it comes to children, demand that same-sex parents provide a surrogate for the missing gender parent. And, demand of all parents who raise non-biological children, that they inform their child or children about the missing parent or parents and allow access to them as adults, if the child wishes. Where a child has donated sperm, egg, womb, then the individuals who provide those ‘ingredients’ must be prepared to play a part in the child’s life if the child wishes, and the parents who raise the child must support that process.

    Science/medicine remains ignorant about the truth of the miracle of life, and even as the information of the mechanics increases, the ignorance does not diminish, but increase. We know that DNA passes from the foetus to the mother and vice-versa, ergo, any womb mother is a part of that child’s life forever, and vice-versa. Egg and Sperm even more so, or, perhaps not – we just do not know.

    What we do know is that no human exists without a mother and a father and every human has a right to have that fact acknowledged. It matters not a whit how loving adoptive parents might be, as we can see with the damage done through forced adoption in the past, and the explosion in ancestry searches and reunions for grieving adoptees and their lost biological parents.

    The core reality of same-sex parenting is that it is impossible and it is a lie. There cannot be two parents of the same sex. There can be two people raising a child of the same sex, either both adoptive or one adoptive, but it is impossible to have two mothers or two fathers. This fantasy has been aided and abetted by science/medicine driven by greed and ego and devoid of ethics. IVF is an experiment with human life and the full effects of artificial conception and often pregnancy, will not be known for two generations. How much worse to add to the experiment the fantasy that a mother, female figure, or father, male figure, is dispensable.

  • Jody says:

    I’ve just come out of hospital after a brief scare. Upon checking in at A&E, I started up a conversation with a male nurse who said, “You’re missing Q&A” tonight. I said I didn’t like it, that I was a proud conservative and that Q&A had all the democracy and finesse of circus maximus. He got onto same sex marriage and said “Scott Morrison is a moron” (because he opposes it). I replied, “Do you think your hate speech directed towards Morrison is any different to the fear of hate that SSM advocates claim will arise from their adversaries in advocating their opposition?” He said, “I guess not” and I when I said Labor and Penny Wong had said they weren’t doing anything about SSM whilst in government he stammered and blustered… Then, going in for the ‘kill’, I said I wanted a plebiscite because muslims and members of the multi-culti community probably wouldn’t like SSM and wouldn’t appreciate parliament over-riding their views. He insisted the plebiscite was “a huge waste of money” and I said “there are thing to be ironed out; not just whether or not the people want SSM, but whether religious groups are able to enforce their rights NOT to recognize something which isn’t in the tenets”. We stopped then and he looked daggers at me every time he walked past.

    I’m still up for the fight!

Leave a Reply