Gay Marriage Through the Back Door

ward and andrewsChris di Pasquale is “an LGBTI officer” with the National Union of Students. I became aware of this in the course of reading an article in the Illawarra Advertiser in which Mr di Pasquale is reported as attending a day of action at the University of Wollongong in support of the Union’s “Make Education Free Again’ campaign. The article commences with something of a non sequitur (emphasis added):

Donald Trump won the US presidency on the back of the Make America Great Again slogan. However, a spokesman for the National Union of Students says their “Make Education Free Again’ slogan has a positive message.

For the life of me I can’t see the subtle between-the-lines negativity of ‘Make America Great Again’.  Possibly someone like Justice Mordy Bromberg, a keen legal mind versed in divining hidden meanings and motivations, could explain it to me.

Anyway, I was intrigued by Mr di Pasquale’ quaint idea that education has ever been ‘free’ so I decided to find out a bit more about him. While there’s not a lot of personal information about online, he is a proud contributor to Red Flag, self-described as a not-for-profit journal established by the Socialist Alternative in 2013. One of his essays in that august journal concerns, you guessed it, same-sex marriage and the fight for ‘marriage equality’. It makes interesting reading, primarily for what it doesn’t say. What it doesn’t say in particular is why the proposed plebiscite as a way of achieving ‘marriage equality’.

Here’s one excerpt:

The proposed plebiscite on marriage equality is not a way to ensure that the Australian population has a more democratic say over the issue. Poll after poll shows that about 60 percent of people, a clear majority, support marriage equality.

As we all know, polls can be constructed to get whatever result those paying for them desire. ‘Do not oppose’ is not the same as ‘support’, but if you don’t offer the first option you are going to inflate the number of putative ‘supporters’ by the addition by default of all those who don’t really care one way or another, the live and let live contingent.  Among that claimed 60% there may only be 30% with a strong conviction who would go to the wall (no pun intended) over the issue — roughly equivalent, I would suggest, to those who strongly oppose the idea, also out of conviction.

Why then should that 30% be shouted down?  Why should that body of opinion not be allowed to present its case? Given the bullying by same-sex marriage advocates — hotels intimidated into cancelling meetings of traditional-marriage supporters, for instance — it is clear that a plebiscite is the only means by which they can be heard in civilised debate.

To suggest that a plebiscite is less democratic than a free vote by MPs, themselves bullied and intimidated, is the height of hypocrisy.  Tony Abbott is the bete noir of the ‘marriage equality’ fascists, routinely derided as a homophobe despite the fact that his whole personal history gives the lie to this cheap shot.  His opposition to same-sex marriage is despite his acceptance and liking for many homosexuals (his sister and the late Christopher Pearson, to name but two).   The plebiscite was his concession to the same-sex marriage lobby – a way of giving Conservative MPs cover – intended to defuse the concept as a partisan political issue.  If the polls gay activistists are so fond of citing are accurate, they could have had ‘marriage equality’ by now. But they flung that option right back in his face. Why?

It is clear that it is not the result that is important to these activists but the means by which it is achieved. They can never find it acceptable to have ‘marriage equality’ bestowed upon them by the popular will of he allegedly homophobic masses.  It must be seen as a ‘right’ that needs no democratic endorsement. More than that, as Safe Schools architect Roz Ward has stated, it will further weaken the Judeo-Christian foundations and traditions of our society, which Ms/Mr Ward regards as a good thing. If they get this over he line by means of a supposedly ‘free’ parliamentary vote it will not represent an advance in human rights; rather, another victory for the fascistic Left.  And it won’t be the end of the matter, bet your bottom dollar on that.

It must be a plebiscite or nothing — and wavering Coalition MPs need to be made explicitly aware of that.

10 thoughts on “Gay Marriage Through the Back Door


    Sodomy is the correct terminology. Sodomy is the main communicator of fatal diseases like AIDS. Christian Marriage gives Life. There is no equality between life and death.

    • lloveday says:

      Extrapolating from statistics on homosexuals in the Australian& NZ Journal of Public Health leads to concluding around 1.6% of Australian adults practise male-male sex, yet according to the Kirby Institute they account for 72% of HIV cases (other reports suggest as high as 80%), around 45 times the rate of other Australians. That 45 fold is far, far greater than the increased risk of lung cancer in smokers.  
      The average lifetime cost of each new infection is estimated to be approximately $750,000 by Positive Life NSW, in good part paid for by taxpayers; yet no politician or journalist, to my knowledge, has suggested homosexuals should pay the cost of treating their disease, brought about by their chosen lifestyle and easily preventable. No, they just pick on the smokers, drinkers, over-eaters, under-exercisers – it’s easier and politically correct, albeit a cop-out.

    • kingkate@hotmail.com says:

      Careful now you can’t say sodomy anymore. There is a campaign running in The Australian for SSM. That’s been going on now for 18 months. Hence the Australian press – SMH,ABC, the commercial stations and The Australian – continue with the deceit that the majority of Australian’s support SSM. An alternative poll – one done by a Christian marriage group – shows only 30% support SSM. Gone from The Australian are any intelligent articles against the concept of SSM – no doubt because they want to pick up more subscribers by saying goodbye to quality journalism. Also any comments below any article in The Australia with the word “sodomy” will not be placed on-line. You are also not allowed to write that men who practice sodomy will have more health problems, that in countries where there has been SSM for years there is still a much higher incidence of suicide amongst men with same-sex attraction, and that there is no evidence that “people are born that way”. The Australian only gives lip service to the idea that the electorate deserves and voted for a civilised debate and a vote on SSM.

  • Lacebug says:

    I do appreciate the headline’s reference to a ‘back door’.

  • Turtle of WA says:

    As far as bad puns go, that was a beauty.

  • Rayvic says:

    In June 2015, GetUp! campaign director Sally Rugg, a leader of the campaign to redefine marriage, stated:

    “Reforming the marriage act in Australia won’t be a decision made by the High Courts. We won’t win equality through a referendum or a plebiscite. The way we’ll win this is in our Federal Parliament, and the decisions made in those Houses will ultimately be influenced by us. …

    “My hope for the future is that when we win this thing, when we get equal marriage rights in Australia, it snowballs into a movement passionate about ending every kind of discrimination faced by the queer community, particularly our trans and intersex neighbours. An Australia where everyone not only knows they’re equal, but they live that truth as well.”

    From what transpired in Canada following its redefinition of marriage about 10 years ago, the recent local gay marriage activist attacks (viz. on Christian-owned Coopers Brewery, and on IBM and PwC for hiring Christians who were members of Christian groups) are indicative of the bullying that would become commonplace should marriage be redefined in Australia.

  • Jody says:

    According to the SMH today in its scathing attack on Latham and its support of Sky sacking him, Labor has moved on to more ‘sophisticated’ issues. Having secured rights for the working man, the article argues, it has moved towards helping minorities, marginals and other peripheral social groups. So, it appears the working families of western Sydney are now so contented with their lot – thanks to the Labor Party – that it’s time to move onto boutique issues in line with progressive ideologies.

    No wonder I get angry; these bottom-feeders and rent-seekers just hog the daylight with their warped ideologies. Too many gravy trains!!

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    The Bishop in Sydney described the lbgtqi activists as a barge full of bullies.

    I’d add the word buggered.

Leave a Reply