Home » Posts tagged 'Same-sex marriage'
Tag Archives: Same-sex marriage
As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .
There have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.
When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).
These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.
What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.
The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.
This result is precisely what I expected when I wrote may earlier post on the overreach of the Canberra Town council>
The High Court determined that the federal parliament has the power under the Australian constitution to legislate on same-sex marriage, and that whether or not same-sex marriages are legalised is a matter for the federal parliament.
“The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sex couples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different from the relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises,” the summary judgment said.
“Accordingly, the ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act.”
It said because the ACT does not validly provide for the formation of same sex marriages, the whole of the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 has no effect.
Supporters of gay marriage were dismayed at the ruling.
“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said shortly after the decision was handed down in Canberra.
However, he said the ruling was just “a temporary defeat”.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Ivan Hinton was one person who took advantage of the ACT laws, marrying his partner Chris Teoh in Canberra last weekend.
“I don’t want to be unmarried this afternoon,” he told reporters outside the High Court.
The Australian Christian Lobby said the ruling upheld the uniformity of marriage laws across the country.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation,” managing director Lyle Shelton said in a statement.
“It’s about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.” Mr Shelton was concerned for same-sex couples who thought they were married under the ACT legislation.
“Understandably they will be disappointed at the decision handed down today and it is unfortunate they were put in this position,” he said.
Human Rights Law Centre spokeswoman Anna Brown said the ruling was a blow to the same-sex couples who had tied the knot in the ACT.
“The outcome has laid responsibility for advancing marriage equality squarely at the feet of the federal parliament,” she said.
ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said her government had no regrets about pursuing marriage equality.
There are no short cuts to bringing about such a substantive change to our society and anyone who thinks that its a good thing to try to make such changes through the back door opened by an overblown town council are clearly deluded. The high court has spoken and made it clear that the definition of marriage is entirely within the remit of our FEDERAL parliament and the activists that pursued this bit of street theatre should be hanging their heads in shame that they have given Gay marriage advocates such empty and false hope,
Well I’m Cheering a good decision Comrades
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (thehimalayantimes.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (sbs.com.au)
- First day of gay marriage in ACT (news.smh.com.au)
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (cnsnews.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (radionz.co.nz)
Could there ever be a topic that gives as freely as the push for same sex marriage? It certainly is a cause that arouses great passion form its advocates many of whom try very hard to berate, bully and intimidate their interlocutors when they can not convince them that marriage is only about “love”. If the lesson of human history tells us anything it is that marriage is about many things but prime amongst them is the formalising of a pair bond for the purpose of propagating the species.
As someone who does not endorse changes to the marriage act I have been subject to the abuse I mention. As I have previously argued I don’t think that “marriage” is really desired by same sex couples, rather it is social acceptance of their sexuality something that to a large extent they already have in this country. None the less they seek further affirmation in changing the definition of marriage to include their partnerships. It is a project that will fail even though they do seem to have a reasonable level of support among the young people who are led by their romantic loins when considering such things. My own teenage daughter thinks that my position on same sex marriage is “terrible” and “wrong” none the less I see no reason for me to change my position. which brings me to the recent passing of a bill in the ACT “parliament” to create same sex marriage in that jurisdiction. In the first instance I think its entirely relevant to remind readers how small and insignificant the ACT is at a national level. in many ways the ACT assembly is little more than a glorified Town Council it has sway over an area substantially smaller than any of the major cities of this country and a population that is easily exceeded by many of our provincial towns. So to envision it being on par with the other states or even the Northern territory is entirely wrong headed its a minor town council with delusions of grandeur, which trades upon its responsibility to host the national parliament to inflate its importance. in reality it should focus on the same matters as other town councils, namely roads refuse and rates instead we get cavorts like the same sex marriage nonsense. neatly summed up by Paul Kelly in the OZ:
Only a year ago a same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98-42. That is not a close vote. Since then Labor, the main same-sex marriage party, has lost a swag of seats and the Coalition, the main traditional marriage party, has gained seats. The September 2010 debate saw the Coalition vote as a bloc against same-sex marriage. Even if Coalition MPs had voted on conscience the bill would have been defeated by a wide margin. This remains the situation.
Why is this? The explanation, contrary to much same-sex propaganda, is that support for its cause is far more equivocal than it admits and, for many people, there is resistance to the nature of the noisy and often intimidatory same-sex campaign. Telling people who are not persuaded to your position that they are prejudiced or bigots does not, ultimately, assist your cause.
Attorney-General George Brandis announced on October 10 that the commonwealth would challenge the validity of the ACT laws. He had advice from the acting Solicitor-General they were invalid. This was no surprise.
The founding fathers enshrined marriage in the Constitution as one of the legislative powers of the national parliament. Moreover, under section 109 a federal law prevails over a state law “to the extent of the inconsistency” between them. The national parliament ignited the marriage provision in 1961 when the attorney-general, Garfield Barwick, promoted the federal marriage law. Until then, states and territories had regulated marriage.
Barwick’s intent was to honour the purpose of the founding fathers and create a national, consistent and uniform law for marriage in Australia. He specified a free vote for MPs. The issue was not treated as a party matter. His design was embraced by ALP deputy leader Gough Whitlam.
The Abbott government has a firm position: the Barwick design. Brandis stands on the shoulders of Barwick and Whitlam. Brandis has signalled the depth of his own views by saying “it has been understood for more than half a century that there is a single commonwealth law governing marriage”.
Indeed, there has been almost no suggestion since 1961 that states retain a residual power in legislating marriage. Lawyers will dispute the matter. But for many people it is hard to imagine a greater inconsistency between federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the state-territory push for same-sex marriage.
In his recent Eureka Street posting, Frank Brennan calls the ACT law “a dog’s breakfast” and shows that it has conflicting definitions of marriage. He warns of the risks in the tactics of the same-sex lobby and says any changes to marriage law should come only by free vote in the national parliament.
States and territories know any marriage laws they pass must be tested in the High Court. It is imperative, given lives are being affected, that test come as fast as possible. Brandis rang the ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, told her he intended to challenge her law and suggested the ACT not operate its law until the High Court resolved the issue. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell later told Brandis there would be no delay.
The situation is clear: the ACT government is responsible for each and every consequence if this law fails. It is inconceivable that Whitlam, a Labor icon and human rights champion, would have tolerated this ACT indulgence designed to undermine national marriage laws that, if upheld, would permit states to freelance on marriage (think a populist Queensland premier merrily legislating against a federal same-sex marriage law).
If the High Court eventually upholds the Brandis position in relation to territory and state law, the onus will shift back to where it should belong, the national parliament. At this point Labor should insist that Abbott operate by the Barwick rules and give MPs freedom from party positions on the vote. This is the best means of advancing debate on marriage laws. Yet there is a danger that Labor may commit a huge tactical blunder on this front.
In the end I expect that homosexuality will continue to become far more socially acceptable than it already is. It is certainly something that I look forward to because I steadfastly believe that we should all be able to openly love and openly live with the partners of our choice regardless of their gender. The great irony is that at its heart the ACT bill creates a form of civil union for homosexual couples and when I an others have previously advocated civil unions as an instrument to meet the needs of gay couples the usual suspects have gone into a form of apoplexy that is most undignified and dare I say it, counter-productive to their cause because they then alienate those of us who do want to see our Gay brethren living happy lives even if we hold a more traditional view of what a marriage is and should remain.
- Australia capital backs gay marriage (bbc.co.uk)
- Tony won’t shift on gay marriage : sister (theage.com.au)
- Austrailian Federal Government Seeks to Kill Nations First Same-Sex Marriage Laws (lezgetreal.com)
- Tony Abbott launches legal challenge after Australia’s capital passes gay marriage (independent.co.uk)
- Fed govt will challenge ACT gay marriages (news.theage.com.au)
- ACT prepares to debate gay marriage bill (news.theage.com.au)
Imagine my surprise when my mate Kevin sent me this email overnight.
To: Iain Hall
If I am re-elected Prime Minister, I will support marriage equality legislation in the first 100 days of Parliament.
At this evening’s debate, I made that commitment to the Australian people.
If you think it’s time for marriage equality, I’d like you to stand with me and show the country that we think it’s time:
I’ve been thinking about the meaning of marriage for a long time – and I won’t hide the fact that this has been a journey for me. It is a difficult discussion, and I won’t force this on anyone. It will be a free vote for members of the Labor Party.
But here is what I know: we are at our best when we give all Australians the same dignity, the same opportunity for happiness.
I believe that no matter who we love, we all should be able to make that same promise I was able to make to Therese over 30 years ago. That all of us should be allowed to marry the one we love.
I am the first Prime Minister of this country going into an election promising to support marriage equality. So if you support equal marriage, I will need your support.
This is an issue that is very personal to people. What moves us to take a stand on this issue can move others too. If you think it’s time for marriage equality, share your story telling the country why.
What it says to me is that there is no fringe issue that the New Again Dear Leader won’t try to exploit in his quest for re election. However if we give this brain fart even the most cursory inspection it will become obvious that it won’t save Rudd’s bacon because most of those who are hot to trot for gay marriage are Greens supporters or other minions of the left who would not vote for the coalition anyway. So the best that this could do is make a few votes that now only come to Labor as second preferences go directly to Labor which in real terms makes it a zero sum game, that is only if we can assume that those same progressives can get over their disgust for Labor’s PNG solution. Nah this whole grab for poofter power to save Rudd from political oblivion is bound to be as fecund as the gay couples that Rudd is seeking to exploit here. It may well come to pass that as a society we decide to broaden the definition of marriage to include same sex pairings but at present its invocations buy Rudd is just another example of the old bait and switch which Rudd hopes will shift the debate into the esoteric world of interpersonal domestic issues rather than the focus being upon Labor’s woeful record of mismanagement , overreach and wacky ideas that don’t work like the carbon tax.
- Kevin Rudd’s message: it’s time for marriage equality (cafewhispers.wordpress.com)
- Australian PM Promises Equal Marriage Bill if Re-Elected (bilerico.com)
- Australia: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pledges to introduce equal marriage if reelected (pinknews.co.uk)
- Australian PM Kevin Rudd Promises Marriage Equality in 100 Days if Elected: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
- Australia’s Kevin Rudd Promises Gay Marriage Bill In First 100 Days (ontopmag.com)
- Australia Election: Kevin Rudd reads from notes in first debate (telegraph.co.uk)
- Rudd pledges same-sex marriage bill (updatednews.ca)
I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:
Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people. Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.
It could be bit more spice into the pot for September 14 but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise be consigned to the dustbin of history…
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.
Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.
Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.
Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.
Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.
What our activist friends seem to forget is that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.
Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.
I find it sadly amusing that those from your end of the political spectrum who are so uptight about Christianity are so afraid of any criticism of Islam, especially when you consider how antithetical Islam is to so many aspects of modern society that you champion, things like homosexuality and Gay marriage, the equality of women, tolerance of religious diversity are all soundly denounced by both Islamic scripture and contemporary Islamic scholars and Imams. Add to that rampant Anti-Semitism, intimidation of those criticise or lampoon the faith and dreams of Jihad and there is a great deal that any progressive should be willing to criticise. That those like yourself are scared of anyone, like Geert Wilders who tells it like it is and points out the folly of ignoring the implications of Islam in our societies suggest that the cleansing effect of sunshine needs to be shone upon both Islam and those who are so willing to be its apologists and enablers.
I come back to the computer after a lay down and find that Mike has not only deleted the post that I re-blogged but the entire content of his blog!
The only post there now is this:
Yeah, no, sorry, it’s just too painful/stressful/aggravating to write about Australian politics. Solidly European stuff now. Anything even vaguely political will be on The Drum/The Punch/National Times.
My oh My how is that for Lefty cowardice?
- Geert Wilders’ speaking tour (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- (Weekend documentary) Islam Rising: The Call To One World Ummah (Dominion) (themuslimissue.wordpress.com)
- Geert Wilders Down Under: Fear doesn’t need a visa, and it’s on tour already (1389blog.com)
- “If [Muslims] Had Gotten Rid of the Punishment for Apostasy, Islam Would Not Exist Today” (themuslimissue.wordpress.com)
You lot all have one profound similarity and that is in your confirmation bias telling you that Abbott is evil incarnate and that he will surely stumble so badly between now and the election that Gillard will be able to slip back into office by default. In the immortal words enunciated in the Castle “yer dremin”. Due soon is the budget update and does anyone want to lay odds on the budget being in the black? It would be only the brave or stupid who honestly expects that mythical surplus to appear .
Even The Newman factor won’t save you as the government here winds back the severity of its cuts. The boats keep coming and no amount of pie in the sky social schemes are being believed no matter how noble the idea may be. And now on top of that Gillard has once again proven what a liar she is by back-flipping on the promise to Oakshott and the Greens about a referendum on indigenous “recognition” in the constitution. The alternative bill proposed is just window dressing and it won’t win Gillard any cred with the voters either. You all seem to think that Tony Abbott is in strife here when the reality is that its Gillard and Labor who are still in a deep electoral hole and rather than climbing out they are furiously digging deeper each day. The defeat of those two Gay marriage bills means that the misdirection of that issue is over and now with one less fringe issue to distract the people from Labor’s performance the voters are going to have lots more time to weigh up the virtues of Labor in power and no amount of “look over there, wasn’t Tony a bad boy when he was at uni “ is going to save Gillard from the humiliation of defeat at the next election.
- Australia votes against legalizing gay marriage (cbc.ca)
- Australian Lawmakers Uphold Ban on Gay Marriage (abcnews.go.com)
- Abbott’s ‘real’ challenge (theage.com.au)
- Australia’s Gillard climbs back in polls a year from elections (news.terra.com)
- Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties? (iainhall.wordpress.com)