Will This Be the End of Marriage?

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: http://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: https://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: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&sen=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=10


[2151 words]

21 Replies to “Will This Be the End of Marriage?”

  1. Dear Bill, I have already sent emails to the Senators for Queensland in defense of traditional marriage. It seems Sen. Hanson-Young wants to shout down anyone who wants to speak in favour of traditional marriage. I hope sanity prevails.
    Regards, Franklin Wood

  2. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young seems to enjoy manipulating opinion with as much emotionalism as she can muster, and adds to that an unhealthy dose of contempt for the views of others. To me, she comes across as one of our most arrogant citizens, ever to have been given the responsibility of community leadership. Trampling on well-won values, and tried and tested wisdom, she displays little to no appreciation at all for a considered opinion, formed through years of faith in Christ, and community participation.

    Trevor Faggotter

  3. I would honestly say that over 99% of what I hear or read in mainstream sources or from political, judicial or ostensibly scientific sources supportive of ssm is total rubbish. That is because it assumes that homosexuality is genetic.

    But it has never been proven that people are ‘born that way’ and it is an absurdity for at least three reasons:

    1. Genetics only has meaning within a heterosexual context, either to create the person in the first place, or for the person to pass on a given trait. It makes no sense whatsoever that a trait would actually intrinsically stop itself from being passed on.
    2. Many people have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and embraced the biological fact that their body is made for the opposite sex – nobody has ever ‘walked away’ from having dark skin, for example.
    3. Why do identical twins exist where only one is in the homosexual lifestyle? I’ve never heard of, say, identical twins where one is male and the other female, or one having red hair and the other dark.

    That’s even before you get to discussing the so-called ‘scientific evidence’, which is dubious at best.

    Whatever role genetics might play, it is clearly minor if at all, and I suspect environmental factors are the major cause for same-sex attraction. The problem for the activists is if it is not genetic, the vast majority of arguments and claims about homosexuality popular these days go out the window.

    Virtually every TV program, every movie, every website, every newspaper or magazine article, every book, every organisation and every conversation that assumes this position is completely worthless because they have at their core an assumption that is false.

    Furthermore, the truth is that there is no discrimination in regards to marriage in Australia – everybody has the same rules apply to them – anybody can marry one person of the opposite sex who is unrelated and old enough. So every man and every woman has equal access today. There is nothing to ‘fix’. There is no injustice to reverse, and no wrong to right. Young people with a need to change the world need to look elsewhere for a righteous cause, and God-haters need to grow up, lose the infantile ‘you’re a homophobe’ sanctimonious attitude and face reality. There is no man or woman in Australia in 2012 who is ‘denied’ marriage and that is fact.

    I’m sick of hearing about ‘equality’ when the two paradigms they wish to introduce actually are discriminatory – ie. 2 women excludes men and 2 men excludes women.

    Seriously, this is like trying to explain to someone that water is wet at room temperature at sea-level and having them get upset at you and call you names. But everybody on the planet – 7 billion plus – has a mother and father. Duh.

    We need to pray because we are being ruled by far too many liars or madmen. I find the whole matter extremely distressing. It literally makes me sick to the core that we have such mindless and childish opposition to facts. What has become of reason and truth?

    That said, it is heartening to read the contributions by George Brandis, Chris Back and Ron Boswell. It gives one great hope to read their speeches. At least some people in Canberra do not have air whistling between their ears. Poor old Sarah ‘accidents happen’ Hanson-Young has a problem with facts, fair debate and free speech, doesn’t she? Like the rest of those awful reality-challenged watermelon Greens.

    I sent my contribution to my members, and a few others including that sad pretender Malcolm Turnbull. Others should too via this link:


    …and, pray, pray, pray.

    Mark Rabich

  4. These people are so low-down, they are truly pathetic, it is quite obvious that they are driven by demonic influence, Satan must be laughing his head off in the background.
    Steve Davis

  5. Hi Bill, I feel sorry for you having to sit through all that dribble, for goodness knows how many hours. Moreover I am glad that you document this hearing. It is hard to imagine that politicians can ignore the many thousands of submissions from people with good sense to know that marriage is for a man and a woman only. I trust that good old commonsense will prevail and that same sex marriage will never see the light of day in this country, that adamantly holds to the fair go principle. A minority demand of drastic lifestyle change is not a fair go, sorry, this is anti-democratic, apart from all other perspectives related to traditional Christian teaching.
    Bill Heggers, Perth

  6. Please support Marriage one man with one woman for LIFE.
    The future of your great nation is built on strong families, One MAN with ONE WOMAN.
    I appeal to you to honour marriage as God intended.
    This is my email to many MPs. Thank you Bill for your good update of what is happening in Federal Parliament.
    Judith Bond

  7. Fired off to all Vic senators the reply I sent to my MP (Anna Burke Chisholm), who made the main line of arguments for change in her email to me, but who is taking the electorate views to retain the present definition into the debate.

    John Angelico

  8. In describing the incompetence of Hanson-Young, Pratt and other SSM proponents we need to ask ourselves: how in the world they are ever elected to these responsible positions.
    Is it because society in general, and Christians in particular, are unconcerned about the political process?
    How do we get voters involved in these issues?

    Dunstan Hartley

  9. Psalm 2 (World English Bible):

    Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot a vain thing?
    The kings of the earth take a stand, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his Anointed, saying,
    “Let’s break their bonds apart, and cast their cords from us.”
    He who sits in the heavens will laugh. The Lord will have them in derision.
    Then he will speak to them in his anger, and terrify them in his wrath:
    “Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion.”
    I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, “You are my son. Today I have become your father.
    Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.
    You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
    Now therefore be wise, you kings. Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
    Serve Yahweh with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
    Give sincere homage to the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him. A Psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.

    Phil Ellery

  10. Well written and thought out as usual Bill. I’ve contacted the MPs and am praying.
    David Roberts

  11. Dunstan, the ‘church’ don’t want to know about politicians. Where is the support from ministers and pastors for Bible based and disciplined daily living for people and politicians? Non existant in most cases.
    Judith Bond

  12. Hi Dunstan and others,

    I developed my service: http://www.thegoldensceptre.com.au especially for those Christians who wouldn’t normally be getting involved in these issues.

    I take all the hassle out of contacting MPs on issues such as this. Pre-addressed and pre-written (but not form letter) emails to be sent with just two-clicks!

    To get most Christian voters involved in these issues, I believe my service is really the only practical way to do it.

    Please pass the word on to the great majority of Christians who aren’t, as yet, regularly contacting their MPs.

    Best wishes,

    Mansel Rogerson

  13. Senator Sarah H-Y is a child, bringing the worst of student union politics to the highest forum of our land. A disgrace.

    We cannot expect anything useful from her, anymore than we can expect a dog not to bark.

    She should go back to bank telling.

  14. Thank you Bill for being there to do spiritual warfare onsite, so to speak. And thank you for documenting some of what was said. It helps to know how to pray.
    Alison Stanley

  15. Fantastic News!!!

    An Australian Labor MP’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage has been overwhemingly defeated in the House of Representatives. The result of the vote was 42-98.

    This is not the end of the battle by any means, but a wonderful victory along the way. Thanks to all of you who prayed and worked so hard to make this happen.

    All glory to God.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. Penny Wong is another one of those who manages, in spite of her many words never to say anything of substance. Dunstan, I asked myself the same question when I listened to her yesterday, how does she ever get elected?

    I wonder how those who, as Bill said “don’t have air between their ears”, put up with this dribble? They must be feeling like being stuck in a hole, because the debate never really gets resolved because all they can do on the other side, the side that brings up all that unnecessary balony only has emotive black-mail shouting and rudeness to offer.

    Of course what is legal shapes peoples’ behaviour. Those who do not have the fear of God, at least have mostly a healthy fear of the law. I did before I was a Christian I entered into marriage with the intent of a divorce, just because I knew I legally could. The grief it has brought to those who were involved in that family as well as to me is unquantifiable. I know for sure, if divorce had still been illegal, I would not have done what I did. This is my personal reason for working not only to stop ssm, but, if I can to return to where we were before “no fault divorce”, with adjustments shaped by what we know, but back to what was good in this issue.

    I don’t want my children to be able to make wrong choices that easily, should they at all, as, I think we might all do at times, forget the good law of their God.

    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  17. Thanks guys

    And yet even more terrific news! The Australian Senate has just voted on homosexual marriage with another big defeat! Both votes were supposed to be cliff-hangers, yet both were massive wins.
    Here is how it all went:
    HoR 98 no 42 yes
    Sen 41 no 26 yes
    Total 139 no 68 yes
    A huge win indeed. Many thanks for all your prayers, all your hard work, and all your concern. It has all paid off big time here. Glory to God.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. I am absolutely overjoyed, and hugely relieved, at this news – a very definite answer to prayer. I have been gobsmacked by those who support gay marriage and their arguments on this issue. My daughter attends a Anglican school and one of the mothers (a lesbian whose daughter was conceived by donor sperm) wrote this comment on her Facebook page yesterday. “still cannot believe that in todays multicultural society that we still allow misinterpreted views taken by extremist Christians to have ANY say in our legislation. We should all be considered equal members by LAW.. If churches wish or do not wish to allow marriage that should be an individual choice of each church, but more importantly; if the word “marriage” cannot be entered into equally by all members of society then the word itself should be removed from any part of legislation”.

    Sharon Chamberlin

  19. Sharon, look at the bright side of life…this woman has her daughter at an Anglican school and by God’s grace, her daughter may just be able to educate her mother about the common good as opposed to the SELF.
    Such people forget that there are consequences to every action. I wonder how loved her daughter is going to feel when part of her came from some random because the mother wanted a child and by golly, who cares what anyone else thinks of the means I use to achieve the end! This minority are nothing but selfish individuals whose pride and vanity are overwhelmingly obvious.
    Tell her that the definition of marriage antedates history, politics, Abraham and Jesus. Even the communists wouldn’t and won’t touch the definition of marriage and now we have the self-fulfilment of a few trying to not only abolish the social significance a nation attaches to marriage but also to diminish the value of the family as the basic unit of civilisation. The institution of marriage is built on a biological fact. Get over yourSELVES.
    Maria Campos

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *