The Australian Senate has just voted on homosexual marriage with another big defeat handed to the militants. With a clear two-thirds rejecting the bill, this is another slap in the face to the activists and their political hangers-on. The bill was defeated 41 to 26.
So for two days in a row the attempts to destroy marriage in Australia have been defeated, and defeated soundly. Yet we were being told all along that both votes were going to be cliff-hangers, with only the smallest of margins. But both were massive wins.
Here is how it all panned out in the end:
HR 98 no 42 yes
Sen 41 no 26 yes
Total 139 no 68 yes
That is a huge win indeed. And we must thank those brave Senators who stood up for marriage. I have already written about one such Senator who has had to pay a very heavy price indeed for standing strong and speaking truth: billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/19/in-defence-of-cory-bernardi/
Senator Bernardi has been treated appallingly by the MSM (of course), but also by many in his own party. Yet his speech was first rate. So let me here offer large slabs of it, since the MSM will never allow his actual words in context to see the light of day:
“I have been and always will be a strong supporter of traditional marriage and its current definition, being a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is accorded a special place in our society because it is a union that is orientated towards having children, thereby ensuring the continuation of our population and civilisation. Society benefits from marriage, so marriage is accorded benefits by society. At the base level marriage is concerned about what is best for society, rather than being concerned about the so-called rights of the individual. Changing the definition of marriage would indeed change the focus of the institution itself. It would put the focus on the desire of adults, as opposed to having the focus on the production and nurturing of an environment for the raising of children for the benefit of society.
“I know that not every marriage has children but marriage is a foundation for the family unit upon which our society is built. It has proven itself as the most sustainable and effective social support and training environment for our future generations. I recall columnist Miranda Devine quoted a UK Family Court judge in 2010 in which he noted that family breakdown is the cause of most social ills and that, despite its faults, marriage should be restored as the gold standard and social stigma should be reapplied to those who destroy family life.
“The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that children of married couples benefit from marriage because they have higher levels of social, emotional and educational development in comparison with children who do not live in that traditional environment. Married mothers are more likely to be employed or hold a university degree and married-couple families are less likely to come up against financial problems. While the authors of the research were keen to stress that this is because of a family’s financial situation and the educational qualifications of the mother, it does give me cause to wonder: doesn’t marriage itself help to provide financial stability and better outcomes? That seems to be a case for opening marriage up to any environment and to any union of two people, as Senator Cameron said, who happen to love each other, but in a family environment it is children who should be the primary concern and children benefit from having both a male and a female role model living in a house—two people that love each other in a permanent union.
“We have all seen the sad effects of marriage breakdown and the adverse impacts it can have on children. We have to also acknowledge that today families do not always come as the gold standard where mum and dad do live together under the one roof of a house and love each other and provide that nurturing environment. I have always said that a child is better in any environment where it is loved and that is irrespective of the circumstances, but it will not stop me from advocating that traditional marriage is the absolutely best environment for the rearing of the next generation. So whatever the forms that families take in this modern day and age—and they do come in so many different forms with some people being individual parents and indeed same-sex couples also raising children and they all do an amazing job in the circumstances—as I said, I will not stop focusing on the importance of promoting and encouraging the traditional family. But simply because marriage is important that does not mean that we should redefine it. We should not open it up to all comers, because I think it would actually devalue the institution.
“The move for same-sex marriage is just another step in what I consider an attack on our enduring and important institutions, particularly the social ones. It is another tear in the fabric of our social mores. The proponents of same-sex marriage, and I do not mean to generalise but this is about many of the proponents of same-sex marriage, ask for one step and they think that is all they want or they say that is all they want and they will be satisfied when this has been achieved—’Just this one thing; give us that and that will be okay and all inequality will be diminished and everyone will be equal and it will be fair’. But the harsh reality is that there will never be equality in society and there are always going to be people who feel that they have got a raw deal or have been discriminated against or do not have the same access to opportunities or advantages as others do, and to pretend any differently is really to deny reality. But history demonstrates that once those who advocate for radical social change, which I consider this to be, achieve it in any way, shape or form, there is then another demand and another demand and another demand and they slowly chip away at the very foundation of what provides our social support, stability and cultural mores and we are left with a replacement that is somehow vastly inferior to the wisdom of successive generations.”
Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan also gave a great speech on this. Here in part is what he said: “Under the guise of compassion for the desire of same-sex couples, we have endured a non-stop campaign of denigration against those who have refused to buckle under the weight of an attack designed to pour scorn and guilt on those who have the temerity to refuse to deny their principles….
“Nowhere in the Marriage Act is the word love even mentioned. The reason the state is involved in marriage is because it is a partnership with social consequences. Marriage is less about the rights of the adult than about the rights and responsibilities those adults have towards the children of the relationship.”
Other Senators could be singled out here as well. But thanks to the efforts of many of these men and women, we have had a mighty victory here. For the time being at least marriage is safe in Australia. The fight of course will go on, as the militants will not stop until they obtain their goal of destroying marriage and family altogether. Thus we cannot rest here. We must remain vigilant.
But we can celebrate this great win. They do not come along too often, so savour the moment while it is here. And once again, many thanks to all of you who contributed to this amazing victory. Thanks for all your prayers, all your hard work, and all your concern. It has all paid off big time here. Glory to God.