On Monday morning debate commenced in earnest on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. There we heard some of the most moronic and juvenile defences for it, and some spirited, wise and quite rational objections to it. I should know: I was there.
I sat in the Senate gallery listening to the various speeches being made, as I prayed and engaged in spiritual warfare. I was totally amazed at the complete moral and mental mischief of those Senators seeking to defend the bill. It seemed to me that a ten-year-old could have mounted a much more intelligent, informed and ethically convincing case.
Their whole pitch involved using emotion, repeating mindless mantras (content-less terms such as “discrimination,” and “equality”), and carrying on about how all this is “inevitable”. The first speaker was Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (South Australia).
Consider this representative bit of drivel: “But it is inevitable; it will happen. The changes are inevitable. There are many, many Australians who want to see marriage equality become a reality. They want to see this discrimination removed. They do not want us to be left back in the dark ages where we thought that just because somebody was homosexual they deserved to be treated as a second-class citizen. This is modern Australia. This is 2012. It is time for us to rid our statute books of this type of discrimination.”
Notice the total lack of evidence, fact, or logical argument – it is all about using emotive and completely mindless clichés. So to champion the universal and historical institution of marriage is to take us back to the “dark ages”? But what do the pages of the calendar have to do with anything here? People also ate and slept back then – should we therefore demand that these things be ditched as well?
And current marriage law treats some folks as a “second-class citizen”? Funny, but I don’t consider myself to be a second-class citizen. You see, I cannot marry; I am already married. A five-year-old cannot marry. Three men cannot marry. A pet owner cannot marry her dog. All this is perfectly sensible and acceptable – it involves not an ounce of unfair discrimination or inequality.
Labor Senator Louise Pratt (Western Australia) was equally appalling in her pathetic attempt at destroying the institution of marriage. Check out this bit of silliness: “So in closing my remarks in this debate, I ask senators in this chamber to remember, when they are deciding how to vote, we exist, we already exist, our relationships exist, our children exist, our families exist, our marriages exist and our love exists. All we ask is that you stop pretending that we don’t. Stop pretending that our relationships are not as real as yours, our love not as true, our children not as cherished, our families not as precious—because they are.”
Oh, so you guys exist and that means we must gut marriage to allow you in? I see. Well, happy threesomes exist as well. Incestuous relationships exist in Australia also. There are those who enjoy expressing their love to their pets. So let’s give all these folks marriage rights as well. After all, we do want genuine marriage equality here don’t we? We do want to eliminate all this awful discrimination now don’t we?
Fortunately there were some voices of sanity, reason and common sense also heard in the Senate. Liberal Senator George Brandis (Queensland) made two strong and solid points in his speech. He first reminded us that this government and its leader cannot be trusted, having broken their word so many times already, including the pledge by Ms Gillard that there would be no homosexual marriage under her leadership.
He also pointed out what a bunch of hypocrites the secular lefties are. For decades they have said how they hate marriage, and now they are treating it as a sacred cow: “I must say that I approach your argument, Senator Hanson-Young, with some cynicism, because people like you—people on the self-styled progressive Left—have for as long as I can remember, at least since the 1960s, mocked and derided the institution of marriage as being patriarchal, obsolete and illiberal. All of a sudden, within the last few years, this institution so derided by you has been rediscovered by you as the test of whether or not one cares about the issue of sexuality discrimination. Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, I have very, very great difficulty accepting your sincerity.”
Later that morning other good speeches were given in defence of marriage. Liberal Senator Chris Back (Western Australia) offered a great discussion on the term “discrimination” and how the radicals have abused it so thoroughly:
“The point I want to make is that we all know it is a nonsense for the rest of Australia to say: ‘I’m disadvantaged. I’m discriminated against. It’s unequal that I’m not called senator therefore I want to call myself senator.’ We know, as we know in the marriage debate, that there are criteria by which Australians can aspire should they wish to become senators. They must be 18 years of age or older. They must be Australian and eligible to vote. They must subject themselves to preselection and they must get elected. Therefore, there are criteria by which people can refer to themselves as senator. In the same way there are criteria by which people can refer to themselves as married people—that is, a man and a woman who are able, in the event that they do not have close family or other relationships, to publicly place themselves before the community in a public event with public witnesses and go through the marriage process.
“I could take the example of airline captains, or judges, or lawyers. Why can’t I call myself ‘Judge Back’? It is because at this moment I do not qualify. I do not meet the criteria. In terms of pilots, as we would all know, why can’t I call myself ‘Captain Back’? There is a public good associated with that event, and that is that the rest of the people on an aircraft who might be subject to my being in the cockpit would of course say, ‘You are not qualified; you do not meet the criteria.’ In the same way that those who are not married do not meet the criteria at this moment that is not to say that they are not eligible to do so in the future. I could even give the example of a Victoria Cross winner. Why can’t I be called ‘Back VC’, or my colleague Senator Williams be called ‘Williams VC’? It is because we all know that that is a venerable status which, of course, is accorded only to those of the highest levels of bravery. Are they more equal than the rest of the community? Am I discriminated against because Roberts-Smith is a VC? Of course I am not.”
National Senator Ron Boswell (Queensland) reminded us of what is at stake here: “I believe we now stand at the brink. We have to make a decision. Do we as a society turn away from everything we know and everything that our society is based on—the ideal that the family has been based on for thousands of years—or do we go the other way? Do we say, ‘Near enough is good enough, because it does not really hurt anyone, it does not cost anything and people want to do it; why not?’ and allow gay marriage and just give up on the ideal that the family is the basic unit of society and it gets there through marriage? We know from experience that the whole of the family—a marriage between a man and a woman—allows children to live in a safe, protected environment where they are allowed to grow into adults and pass strong values on to their children. The family is a continuum. We know this from experience, and therefore we continue with that ideal and look to uphold it.”
He warned how we will all be impacted negatively: “People think, ‘How does it affect me—a man marrying another man?’ If it is made legal they think it will not have an impact on their lives. But they have not considered the real harm that homosexual marriage can bring about, and there are three big harms in legalising homosexual marriage. It abolishes a child’s birthright to have both a mother and a father. Marriage includes the right to start a family. Under article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to marry comes with the right to start a family. If two men are legally able to marry, they obtain the absolute right to have a child via surrogacy. After gay marriage is legalised, a child can henceforth be brought into the world without ever having the right to a mother and father. Sometimes this happens inadvertently—through desertion or death—but it is not something we plan for; it is not something we want.
“Same-sex marriage says that a mother or a father does not matter to a child—and it does. Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature. And what about a young girl changing from a teenager into a young woman? Is it fair to say to her, ‘You don’t have a mother; your mother can’t take you shopping’ or to not be able to help her understand how her body is changing? What are we trying to do here? Why are we trying to defy what has been the right thing for hundreds of thousands of years? What suddenly gives us the inspiration to think that we can have gay marriage and it will not affect anyone?
“I say to the people who very narrowly think this through or who do not think it through: it is more than saying, ‘It doesn’t hurt me; it doesn’t cost anything.’ It is a lot more than that. Once you have gay marriage in law, you have normalised the law, you have normalised homosexual marriage in law, which forces the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the wider culture…”
At this point he was cut off by the shouts of Senator Hanson-Young, just as she cut me off time and time again when I appeared at a Senate Committee hearing with her in attendance not so long ago in Melbourne. See here for how often she shouted me down, and how she had to be reprimanded by the Labor Chairperson for interrupting me: parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2Fc8e9db57-3acd-4c0f-a11a-96077dfac944%2F0003%22
Senator Boswell continued, “I want to quote from the Australian Education Union. This is what the teachers said: ‘If Australia normalises homosexual marriage, the Australian Education Union’s 2006 gender identity policy would be implemented. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and the intersexed need to be normalised. All curricula should be written in non-heterosexist language.’ I suspect the Greens would not see any objection to that but I suspect the Labor people would go into meltdown, because this will be out there. This is what the teachers union have said—and why shouldn’t they? If it is legal, they have to teach it. If it is legal, it has to be taught. You cannot just pick out what you want to teach and not teach.
“If homosexual behaviour is legalised then schools will have to treat homosexual behaviour and marriage on the same basis as heterosexual behaviour and marriage. Parents will no longer have the right to object to these teachings. All conscientious objection to both gay marriage and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour in the school curriculum would be abolished. That is what those people who think, ‘It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t cost me; if it doesn’t, let’s just let it go through’ are opening up. Let’s think a bit deeper because it is your society, your Australia that you are playing with.”
Yes quite so. As I have documented so often here, absolutely everything changes when special rights and marriage rights are granted to homosexual couples. See here for example: billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/15/homosexual-marriage-everything-will-change/
It is expected that on Wednesday and Thursday of this week both houses will vote on this bill. At a bare minimum, every single one of us needs to be praying that marriage is preserved in Australia, and that the radical agenda of the militants is halted – at least for now.
And if you have not yet done so, please contact your local MPs and tell them to vote “no” on this destructive and malicious bill. To find your MP and Senators, see here: www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&sen=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=10