Noted Leaders Speak Up For Marriage

I have spent the afternoon doing a fair amount of research, and I have come up with a great collection of pro-marriage and family quotes from various noted leaders and VIPs from here and abroad. They all take a solid stand against homosexual marriage and for the time-honoured understanding of marriage.

As they champion marriage and family, they also remind us of the importance of looking after the well-being of children. They understand that children deserve a mother and a father – and married ones at that. Consider these comments from various Australian leaders:

1. “We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

2. “The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.”

3. “I have a pretty basic view on this, as reflected in the position adopted by our party, and that is, that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

4. “I think for our culture, for our heritage, the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status.”

5. “Marriage reform … is a distraction from more important issues, at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous”.

6. “I do find myself on the conservative side in this question.”

If all that common sense and sound morality is not enough, let me offer some more examples of this from some key American leaders:

7. “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

8. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

9. Marriage’s “primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

10. “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages.”

11. “Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

12. “[Too many babies] will be born where there was never a marriage. That is a disaster. It is wrong. And someone has to say, again, it is simply not right. You shouldn’t have a baby before you are ready, and you shouldn’t have a baby when you’re not married.”

marriage 4Wow, those are some very solid statements by key leaders supporting marriage and resisting the agendas of the activists. So just who are these folk? Obviously they must all be from the religious right, the moral majority, and so on. No “progressive” would be caught dead saying such things.

Who then are these folks who say marriage is only between a man and a woman? Hateful bigots obviously, as the other side would insist. Fortunately I have fully documented all these comments, and I can reveal here who these people are. For each quote above I offer the person who said it, the approximate date, and a link.

1. Julia Gillard, June 30, 2010.

2. Penny Wong, July 25, 2010.

3. Kevin Rudd, August 10, 2007.

4. Julia Gillard, March 21, 2011.

5. Rodney Croome, April 30, 2004.

6. Julia Gillard, March 21, 2011.

7. Hillary Clinton, 2004.

8. Barack Obama, August 17, 2008.

9. Hillary Clinton, 2004.

10. Bill Clinton, September 20, 1996.

11. Barack Obama, November 2, 2008.

12. Bill Clinton, September 9, 1994.

Hmm, interesting bunch of haters and bigots there – even homosexual activists telling us that homosexual marriage is not a goer. Democratic leaders telling us children need a mum and a dad cemented by marriage. Labor Party heavyweights insisting that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Anyone who dares to say such home truths today is blasted with all the usual terms of endearment: hater, intolerant, bigot and so on. Yet all these decidedly lefties have said exactly the same thing, at least at one time. Sure, they have obviously “evolved” and changed their tune.

But if I and others who are saying the exact same things as they did are terrible and intolerant bigots, then why are they not so too? And why was it OK for them to say it at one time, but it is always wrong for me to say it at any time? Double standards here?

These leaders may claim to have progressed on such matters. Most Australians and Americans would say they have in fact regressed. They have radically shifted away from mainstream opinion. They are the ones out of touch with normal Australians and Americans.

They once knew better. Now they have thrown that all away to be trendy, to be cool, to be PC, to please a noisy minority group. But they have betrayed their core principles of not so very long ago. They have abandoned fundamental truths which I and others will keep on reiterating:

-Marriage is between a man and a woman.
-Children need a mum and a dad.
-There is no such thing as homosexual marriage.

[847 words]

22 Replies to “Noted Leaders Speak Up For Marriage”

  1. One thing I seem to notice about homosexuality is that it all about them. The MardiGras is all about- “look at me”. The rainbow motif to “look at us” the same-sex marriage agenda is all about “we want to get married and hang the rest of you, including the kids”. So is it any co-incidence that the acronym for Marriage Equality is ME?

  2. This is part of an email I wrote following a response to my four page critique of the “Don’t Mess With Marriage” Pastoral Letter. Same-sex marriage is wrong because God has said so; there is no debate. It is God’s law and we should be appealing to God for help. If you want to save this country from the imposition of legalized same-sex marriage then go with the other bishops to your own people – the Catholic laity of Australia – and with them petition God and our blessed Mother. Write a prayer which must specifically mention the biblical and Catholic view and ask your people to pray that prayer after each Sunday Mass. That is your guarantee that same-sex marriage will never become law in this country – turn to God. As a man of God you would know that your struggle is not of this world but against …(see Ephesians 6:12). B.T. Walters.

  3. Dear Bill

    Just wait, as soon as homosexual marriage is enacted in Australia (heaven forbid) all these VIP and Christian Leaders will abandon all those that continue to fear God more than Man, you all will be on your own (but with the LORD of course). We have seen it all in the UK and America already.

    Keep up the good work.


  4. And yet more ‘haters’- children of homosexual couples who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    Interesting watch

  5. As a fatherless child (my dad died when I was three) these folks just tugged on my heart strings….

  6. Hi Bill, I couldn’t access the Rodney Croome quote, in that it didn’t take me to the direct link. It took me to a web page in which I wasn’t prepared to go further in case it took me to some stuff I really didn’t want to see.

  7. Great video Els!

    The mainstream media completely ignores the wholistic impact ”gay marriage” would have on society. Children don’t just need physical producers (basically no more than pods) but a total psychological relationship to their parents, and therefore an actual presence in their lives everyday. Common sense is enough to show that children are able to flourish when they have a mum and dad who love them and are there for them at all times. This must be the primary relationship in their lives.

  8. I’ve come across another one. From the then Senator Brian Greig, the first openly homosexual Australian senator, in a 1999 parliamentary speech:

    “I WOULD also make the point that, in my 10 years as an advocate and an activist with Australia’s gay and lesbian community, I have never met one lesbian or gay person who wants gay marriage. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of gay and lesbian citizens do not support the notion of marriage as it currently stands because they see it as a very heterosexual and outdated institution that should be modified and not copied. To that extent, what lesbian and gay citizens have only ever been asking for is some form of partnership recognition, not marriage”:;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-12-09%2F0029;page=0;query=(Dataset%3Aweblastweek,hansardr,noticer,webthisweek,dailyp,votes,journals,orderofbusiness,hansards,notices,websds)%20Decade%3A%221990s%22%20Party%3A%22ad%22;rec=2

  9. Gay Marriage advocates living in heterosexual de facto relationships. What next?

  10. To parody American sit-com character, Steve Urkel, Bill, you have certainly brought up some “Did I say that?”-“Yes you did!” moments for the present crop of converts to the “marriage equality” camp to try to explain!

    There are plenty of examples to be found of pronouncements by GLBTIQ activists which are against both marriage and the family as social institutions. Then there’s Oscar Wilde’s poignant barb from “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” – Yet each man kills the thing he loves … What passes for love amongst humanity too often proves fatal.

  11. Seems that many politicians will bow to pressure regardless of their own opinions. Changing the marriage act to allow sodomite marriage is the popular topic of the day, so the opinions change. What happened to sticking to your principles regardless of what is popular?

  12. This is very interesting from Pastor and US Attorney, Dr Scott Lively on the self same point: “Taking ‘Friendly’ Fire”:
    I am mystified as to why Austin Ruse would denigrate my ministry in his column titled “Anatomy of a Mythical Boogeyman” at Crisis Magazine: I have always held a good opinion of the man and our few encounters have been cordial and respectful. I am also puzzled that he would accuse me of being difficult to work with, unless he means that he and other pro-family leaders are afraid to be associated with me out of fear of controversy.
    I think for my part I’ve shown great restraint in my few criticisms of the “mainstream” pro-family movement, and instead looked for ways to serve our common interests by taking on the harder tasks that nobody else wants to do — like documenting the homosexual roots of Nazism in my book The Pink Swastika (co-authored by Orthodox Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams) and publicly defending the Russian ban on homosexual propaganda to children which I think is a model for the world.
    Ruse is correct that the LGBT propagandists have created a monstrous mythology about me by vastly exaggerating my influence in the culture war, but neither am I, as he suggests, just a camp follower of the pro-family royalty who’s been “bumming around the pro-family movement for years.” My resume and credentials speak for themselves.
    Sadly, the arrogance reflected in Mr. Ruse’s comments may be the key to understanding why the “mainstream pro-family movement” has failed so spectacularly in defending America against the LGBT agenda. Time and again I’ve watched the know-it-alls in the big pro-family ministries — pumped up by enormous fundraising campaigns like a football player on steroids — push aside the lowly but effective grass-roots activists and take control of local and state battles, only to lose them by pandering to political correctness instead of telling hard truths without apology. The very people who work so hard to exclude our own street fighters from the battles run like frightened school-girls whenever the Marxist media looks cross-eyed at them. Their political strategies are almost entirely driven by fear of being called “haters” and trying to prove they aren’t. It’s pathetic.
    Worse than pathetic, it is moral malfeasance because, as our self-appointed leaders, they have helped to emasculate an entire generation of American Christians by their example of timidity and man-pleasing. I’m not naming any names (and they’re not all guilty) but if you’ve been a pro-family foot-soldier for a decade or more you probably know which ones I’m talking about. Where have the mighty men like Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Ken Hutcherson gone?
    When I first started reading Austin’s article I was pleased and excited. I thought finally one of the “titans” of the pro-family movement was going to come to my defense. But as I read on I realized that the whole article was designed to distance the “mainstream” movement from me because now that the “gays” have turned me into their ultimate “boogeyman” they’re trying to hurt the mainstream groups by suggesting they might somehow be associated with me.
    Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky taught his followers to 1) pick a target to be the symbol of their opposition, 2) freeze the target in place through unceasing propaganda, and 3) publicly destroy the target to set an example to those who oppose them. I’ve somehow become that target: the sacrificial scapegoat of the LGBT movement. And, short of a miracle of God, I will be publicly destroyed, if not through the “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit then by some other means. If we have learned nothing else about the agitators of the modern LGBT movement, we know they are as relentless and implacable as their ancient counterparts in Sodom, who would not desist from their siege of Lot’s home even though they were struck blind by God.
    I’ve done nothing to warrant being ostracized by fellow Christians like Austin. I’ve never advocated hate or violence against anyone. The accusations in the lawsuit and on the “gay” blogosphere are false. The facts I’ve exposed about the “gay” movement and history in my writings are true. I’m not a wild-eyed crazy like the late Fred Phelps. The only justification Austin and his associates have for shunning me is that I make them uncomfortable, and my plain-speaking gets in the way of their public relations schemes.
    One of the things I respect about my Catholic brothers and sisters (that many Protestants don’t quite get), is their understanding of the value of suffering for Christ. My suffering is admittedly miniscule compared to the heroes of the Bible and of the present day in places like the Middle East, but I nevertheless feel honored to suffer for Him. It is a great privilege to be persecuted for Christ’s sake, as the Bible says everyone who desires to live Godly in Him will be. Persecution is the refiners fire that burns away our attachments to the things of this world and enhances our spiritual awareness. It is the fire that will soon bring revival to the believing remnant of the church while the faithless futilely seek shelter in compromise.
    We’ve entered a new season in His story, one in which the ability to keep one foot in the church and the other in the world will quickly become impossible: like a man trying to straddle a chasm that opens up beneath him and widens until a choice must be made on which side to stand. In this new season, thinking and planning in terms of “marketing strategies” and “appealing to the secular mind” instead of just quoting the Bible and trusting God will fail us even more dramatically than they did before.
    I’ve made my choice to stand with Jesus and to speak the plain, hard truth of His Word without compromise or apology no matter what the cost may be, even my life (Revelation 12:11). There is a small army of us already standing together in this pledge. I invite everyone who truly believes in Him to experience the extra blessing of enlisting in this army voluntarily today rather than waiting to be drafted in the dark days ahead — or, God forbid, to try to dodge that draft by siding with the enemy.”
    This is Scott’s website if you are interested, his book The Pink Swastika is revealing and well worth a look. It is available on the website as a free download. Also an excellent threefold leaflet for mass distribution “Not Just another Sin” is available there.

  13. Surely any referendum to change the definition of marriage needs to be comprehensive. To achieve true marriage equality, ALL forms of discrimination need to be removed.
    This includes the right to marry at any age (eliminates ageism), the right to marry as many partners as I like
    (eliminates monogamism), the right to marry my siblings (eliminates kinship discrimination). That will end true discrimination, not just sexual discrimination. And any referendum question must cover them all. Will ME support that? If not, their monicker is a misnomer and therefore fraudulently misleading.

  14. This is brilliant work Bill. Trust you to keep these trump cards up your sleeve. You definitely have a winner with this post.
    I just wish it will get widely publicised. I will do my bit in getting this read by more folk that will appreciate what you have documented.
    Bill Heggers

  15. Bill
    Very well done.
    The debate here in Australia has been wrong footed .It is all about denying children the right to have a mother and a father. This is against what is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Children’s Rights to which Australia is a party.
    The argument about discrimination is a cute way to deflect from the reality that it is designed to erode the value of the traditional family in our society.
    We need to stand up for children’s rights, not let them fall under the selfishness of people who think of themselves rather than our children.

  16. Sue, to be able to stick to principles in the face of merciless and relentless and brutal opposition, these principles frirst have to become convictions put there and held there by God and HIs power. I heard Peter Kentley’s interview with Fran Kelley on the ABC breakfast programme last Monday and must say I was very disappointed with his answer to her last question. It all brought it down to “opinion”, one against the other, each equally valid and the argument only won by a majority supporting one opinion. This is not how we are going to win the battle on marriage. IF we can’t bring the argument to where it needs to be, namely that there are things that are beyond our opinion, like mathematics, time, even traffic rules and they are even manmade rules, but they re made to keep all participants alive , so is marriage a complex concept which does not need reform, for it works well, it is only the people operating it that need reform just like stupid drivers need to be taught better or have their licence taken off them. We dont change the traffic rules just because people die when people do stupid things.
    I had to chuckle at Scott’s analogy of the ever widening chasm and people trying to straddle it. The chasm keeps widening and those who don’t jump to one side quick enough fall in after the uncomfortable experience of doing the splits to keep their position at all cost.)
    🙂 Sorry, that just brought out my “malicious” sense of humour.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  17. Since a ‘gay’ genome has yet to be found, it has been an absolute travesty that ‘gay believers’ have in effect been able to exploit all those provisions intended to assist minority racial group.

    In recognition of their unscientific faith perhaps it is inaccurate to speak of ‘homosexualITY’ when the word should be ‘homosexualISM’?

    Also, if one can hate homosexuals and be labelled a ‘homophobe’, surely the converse is also true?
    Noticed any ‘hetrophobia’ lately?

    Finally, as pointed out by Andrew Bolt, the media has it appears without exception biassedly adopted the Same Sex marriage lobby’s re branding of itself as seekers of ‘marriage equality’

Leave a Reply

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