1. Marriage between a man and woman is consistent with the biological reality that every life is by design the product of two significant people; a father and mother who are equally relevant to a child’s existence and their biological, ethnic and cultural identity. The natural environment of the child provided by biological parents, or those that represent that reality, should be protected to promote identity certainty and stability. The big questions common to all are ‘where did I come from’ and ‘who am I?’ Whether parents are married or not, or are natural parents or adoptive parents, as men and women they represent the biological reality of how all children came into existence. If a child is deprived of a natural parent for whatever reason it is rightly considered a deprivation. While unfortunate circumstances occur, it should not be considered the right of an adult to impose this deprivation upon another. It should certainly not be the right of the state to legislate it.
2. Ignoring biology to include any sexual orientation in the marriage mix is to ignore the special relationship that exists between a husband and wife and the children they create together. In 2013 past Prime Minister Julia Gillard in apologising for the forced adoption of babies referred to the ‘most primal and sacred bond there is: the bond between a mother and her baby’ . A homosexual couple by nature cannot provide this. Likewise, past Prime Minster Kevin Rudd in his apology to the Stolen Generation noted these children were ‘human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments’. That’s a history not to be repeated. Identity is important and therefore biology is. President Obama has on many occasions publicly lamented the pain of not growing up with a father in his own house and pointed to the connection of fatherlessness and violent crime.
3. The alarming research on the cost to children and society at large due to fatherlessness, children disconnected from their natural fathers for whatever reason, is requirement enough to support the current Marriage Act. Same-sex marriage will create by design the normalisation of fatherlessness and motherlessness. What children need is better fathers and mothers, not to have them legislated out of their life altogether.
4. The equality and all inclusive argument is faulty. Redefining marriage to include same sex couples may be seen as exclusive rather than inclusive for the most vulnerable in families. Same sex marriage and parenting, which cannot be divorced from marriage, by nature excludes the right of children to the equal opportunity of a mother and father afforded to other Australians. There is no equality for the children.
5. If legalised, same sex marriage would also legally exclude the general public from legitimately holding the view that all relationships are not equal. This goes directly to freedom of conscience, belief, speech and association; hallmarks of liberal democracy. While all people are and should be equal before the law, it does not follow that all relationships must be equal before the law. If based on that premise, redefining marriage to include same sex couples will reduce the legal protection to oppose every other relationship being legalised; whether polygamous, adult/child marriage or an incestuous marriage. A legal precedent of ‘all relationships are equal’ would have been set. Most Australians would argue that these relationships are inherently different with some being rightly judged as better for children’s identity formation and life outcomes. Redefining marriage will foster greater exclusion of those who simply believe both mums and dads are important to children.
6. Marriage between a man and a woman offers natural diversity to children. Same-sex marriage would offer ‘two of the same’ contradicting the diversity argument. Only a woman can be a mother and only a man can be a father.
7. The main argument proponents have for redefining marriage is freedom to marry who you love. As previously stated, this leaves the door open for any loving relationship to be included, including polygamy and incest. The love argument is based on a feeling of love alone while the traditional understanding of marriage is of love that makes both a commitment and a sacrifice. In the context of marriage and family, this is a personal sacrifice to potentially offer a child a mother and a father. Australian law treats all couples the same, whether married or de facto, heterosexual or homosexual. There is full relationship equality already. But marriage is a special institution for heterosexual couples that benefits children, reflecting the natural order; because all things being equal, couples naturally produce children.
Conclusion: People who support the current Marriage Act do so not because they are bigots or they hate others, but because the sustainable anthropological evidence that brings best outcomes for children is found in their relationship with natural parents, or those who represent father and mother. This is a unity of natural diversity that confirms ethnic, cultural and biological identity. Many have sought to uncover their heritage for health and wholeness reasons and many have been hurt due to being deprived of the knowledge of this inheritance. Let’s not perpetuate identity confusion and add to anthropological instability.
Last night while the Q&A panel were addressing the topic of same-sex marriage, Senator Wong called Michael Sukkar MP ‘shameful’ for raising the concern of Safe Schools; the very tool proponents of same-sex marriage launched to usher in the social change they seek.
As Senator Wong addressed the Victorian 2014 Safe Schools Coalition First National Symposium to launch the social change program, she would know the connection between marriage and Safe Schools was made very clear by the'Yes' advocates.
A marketing slogan was used at the launch, ‘From little things, big things grow’ and the founder of the program Roz Ward then put Safe Schools in the context of the bigger global issue of ‘marriage equality.’ It was said this particular cultural change was too big for them right now. To quote Ward: ‘safe schools is an easier target and at a local level…globally it’s too big.’
This made clear to me, as an observer in the audience, that the end game of ‘Safe Schools’ was always so-called ‘marriage equality.’ And the method of achieving this was through many incremental cultural changes at the local level in schools. This is clearly using children as political activists to redefine words and their meanings to bring about the cultural change desired.
What is actually shameful is that Senator Wong is well aware of the activity in schools, and the connection of the school program to the marriage debate. It is shameful the she attempts to shame into silence the few politicians brave enough to represent the genuine concerns of parents about the broader consequences.
Due to safety concerns, the name of the subject of this article has been concealed. She will be referred to as Mrs Y. Having been a victim of socialist oppression in her country of birth, she asks ‘why are we seeing this here?’
Mrs Y came to Australia with her parents in 1983. Her parents were foundational leaders of the Polish political party Solidarity, which in the face of communism was formed to fight for freedom and democracy. The Australian government sponsored her family as Political Refugees.
Mrs Y knows firsthand the impact of Communism in Poland after the Second World War. As a citizen, she experienced the oppression and the introduction of Martial law with its suppression of core freedoms. Freedom of thought and speech, education, and religion were crimes against the state.
Her experience is chilling. The communist way of life not only led to children’s camps and mass brain washing but survival itself. Food, clothing and other essential items were rationed according to a coupon system. For example, a family was only permitted to consume 1.5kg of red meat per month. In winters of -20 degrees, Mrs Y recalls standing in long queues for up to 36 hours for the basics: milk, bread, and thinks like toilet paper.
All schools were government run and military conduct was part of the curriculum, even for 9 year olds. Mrs Y was threatened that if she went to church there would be severe consequences for her family. As a child, Mrs Y lived with fear for simply holding a Christian worldview. This wasn’t a phobia, but a realistic fear.
The Solidarity party and the Catholic Church stood strongly opposed to the tyranny of Communism and their stance was a catalyst to the introduction of Martial Law. 13 December 1981 brought Martial Law up close and personal with the forceful and violent removal of Mrs Y’s father from the family home. The Police militia also broke her mother’s spine and Mrs Y and her two siblings were left alone as children; abandoned, bruised and emotionally broken.
Mrs Y’s father was transported to a prison near the USSR border in Wlodawa and it was planned he and other Solidarity leaders would be transported to Siberia’s death camps. The nation was in a state of emergency and the army was deployed with full force of armoury: tanks, guns and tear gas grenades. A 7pm curfew was imposed and there were many arrests, beatings and mass killings. Citizens found walking the streets after the curfew would be shot dead on sight.
Mrs Y says that ‘by the grace of God and the charity of the Australian government, their family was welcomed to Australia.’ She is very grateful and loves Australia. Her parents worked hard putting her and her 2 siblings through university enabling them all to pursue careers. Her sister has a PHD in Chemistry and is a Pharmacist, her brother completed two degrees in mechanical engineering and computing and is currently employed in IT management. Mrs Y has a Diploma in Psychology and is a Registered Nurse. She is married with 3 children who all have a Catholic Primary School education. The family attend a Catholic Church in Cranbourne.
This is where life begins to go belly up once again but this time in increasingly socialist Victoria.
Having heard about the Safe Schools Program 2 years earlier, Mrs Y was concerned when her son went to Public High School this year, and she learnt the school curriculum included it. She made an appointment with the school for more information but in an hour-long appointment, Mrs Y wasn’t actually given any information about content and was dismissed with the assurance ‘it’s not what is advertised in the media.’ So, what is it then?
Mrs Y left the school knowing nothing more about the program, and she was cautioned and left frustrated. Ignorance is not always bliss and the result was that trust between school and parent had been breached. She wrote to the school advising she did not give permission for her son to participate in this program and did receive a reply assuring that her wishes would not be ignored. But Mrs Y was cautious about the type of education shaping her children’s worldview. She has witnessed firsthand the political grooming of children and is horrified at the prospect of sexual grooming. (That’s her way of expressing what she’s learnt about the program).
Mrs Y took to social media because she thought Australia was a free country and FaceBook (FB) an available platform in the public marketplace of ideas. She became a FB follower of Politicalpostingmumma (PPM) sharing evidenced based material she found there. She also shared her own research into the Safe Schools Program.
Despite holding what she considered to be intellectual, respectful and cautious conversations on this platform, after a few days she was logged out of her account by FB. Via Messenger, Mrs Y also received threats from Paul Fry who had introduced himself as a gay man. He said he’d made screen shots of her and other FB users posts, and was going to sue them all! She was also vulgarly mocked by Simon Hunt (aka Pauline Pantsdown), who had screen shot her comments and shared them with others.
Despite contacting FB for assistance, they didn't reply to Mrs Y and she learnt that PPM and others were also being logged out of their accounts by FB for their opinions and were receiving threats from gay activists. They were being bullied and silenced into conformity - an all too familiar socialist tactic.
Mrs Y created a new FB account and continued to actively support PPM and post her own findings making it clear she would vote No for same-sex marriage. A strong believer in public debate, Mrs Y felt free to post comments on FB with her concerns about same-sex marriage, the Safe Schools Program and show support for Pauline Hanson’s political statement in wearing the burka in to parliament. Stunt or statement – she thought it was up for debate and of public interest.
When Mrs Y heard an interview with ACL’s Lyle Shelton mentioning he is aware of other people being bullied by gay activists, she identified with this and confidently made a comment on the interview thread. About 10pm that night she saw a video clip from ABC’s Monday night Q & A program which used children as political instruments to actively push for gay marriage. Mrs Y was horrified, likening this to child abuse and exploitation. Here were 9-12-year-olds forming ‘The Children’s Party’ for ‘marriage equality.’
Familiar with the socialist tactic of indoctrinating children through formal education to be more aligned with state dictates than parents values, Mrs Y commented on FB asking whether parents knew about this and had given their consent for the children’s participation in a political party. Within 10 minutes she was again shut down by FB who are now asking her to prove her identity by providing her photo licence, passport, bills with details, school/ group magazine subscriptions, and bank statements.
No explanation was given for shutting her down or for why she should need to provide identification documents which are not required to set up a FB account.
As a fellow Australian, Mrs Y is a strong supporter of the Australian Constitution, the rights of citizens (including freedom of speech and expression of cultural and religious identity) and doesn’t understand why her voice is being silenced on issues related to public morality which impact her and her family. She is being bullied and harassed by the very community that claims itself to be bullied and harassed, sometimes even to suicide.
In her view, the same-sex marriage advocates in this public debate use aggressive bullying and vulgarity to silence the public. As in her communist past, Mrs Y asks ‘why this illusion? It seems to be already decided for us with manipulated information and bullying tactics.’ This is shattering the Australian ‘fair go’ many migrants and asylum seekers came for.
We could all ask, 'tell me why, they don't have a voice?'
It was a great privilege to offer the following short address to the Assyrian community in Melbourne in recognition of Assyrian Martyrs on their annual day of commemoration observed on the 7th August:
Thank you for the invitation to stand with you today to remember and honour the Assyrian Martyrs. Remembering is so very important because not just in Australia but in most western nations, the persecution, displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of Syria and Iraq, the Assyrian Christians, remains one of the best kept secrets. Indeed, the average Australian may never have heard of the Assyrian people or know that the indigenous people of Syria and Iraq are Christian. The average church goer in Australia may not even know that you are here today in Australia or consider that through our common faith, we share both a history and a tradition.
Australians desperately need to remember and be educated about our Christian heritage and the history of the war torn Middle East. There are few people better placed to deliver that education than the Assyrians who have lived through that history. Yet sadly, there seems to be little political will to remember the legacy left by our Assyrian Martyrs, or indeed, to learn from it.
As I mentioned at the recent Protest Rally over the land grabs by Kurdish Peshmerga displacing even more Assyrians, Western politicians appear to be growing increasingly apathetic to their own faith tradition and incapable of understanding the consequences of the contempt others may have for it. We seem incapable of understanding that Christians are continually at risk of losing life, limb, liberty and their homelands in the Middle East because of an ancient hostility toward them. This is a hostility that connects them to the west and this same hostility is rising in the west.
Today we remember the many Assyrian individuals who have been martyred and we remember that Assyrian people, culture and religion have suffered persecution from ancient times to the present day. As the world’s conscience remains dull, and as Foreign Editor of the Australian Greg Sheridan points out ' western media shuts its eyes to the persecution of Christians in the Middle East' - we are here today with deep regret that Assyrians continue to be abandoned by those they would naturally consider to be of their own household of faith. It would be understandable if Assyrians felt like the Patriarch Joseph when he was rejected by his own household. On behalf of that household, I am truly sorry that the Assyrian people continue to be abandoned to corrupt regimes and trans-national jihadists.
As we mourn together the neglected martyrs and decimation of the Assyrian nation, let us commit to educate our fellow Australians in order that they can also remember and that we as a nation can learn from the past and not repeat it.
I want to encourage you to publish your history, to share stories in our local schools, to write and perform plays and use the arts in Australia to tell your story.
To this end I’d like to commend a resource to you that has been authored by religious liberty analyst, Elizabeth Kendal to assist others in understanding the Middle Eastern crisis and genocide of our fellow Christians. It’s called:
After Saturday Comes Sunday
Understanding the Christian Crisis in the Middle East
Unfortunately, Elizabeth was not able to be here today but be assured she continues to keep your plight before the churches, our MPs and DFAT officials in Canberra.
Elizabeth’s latest book, After Saturday Comes Sunday is a timely resource for all teachers, academics, politicians, community leaders and parents; for all citizens of the free world. This is a resource that will enable us to better understand the past and present and prompt us to remember the fallen as we are today. I encourage you to add it to your library and share it with others. Lest we forget.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to stand with you in memory of those from your community who have been martyred for identifying with Christ.
May God Bless and protect you all.
After waiting 30 days for the primary vote to be determined, the 825 counts necessary to determine the final preference allocation occurred in just 30 minutes yesterday. Without group voting tickets the preference flow was poor and it was clear that many voters chose not to follow the party recommendations.
Australian Christians (AC) did very well to more than double our primary vote to 34,763 but were excluded on Count 741-750 accumulating only a small number of preferences. The final AC vote with preferences was 49,708. Family First candidate Peter Bain stayed in the game somewhat longer and was the last to be eliminated before the Green and Liberal candidates took up the final two senate seats.
It appears that much of the Christian constituency did not support Christian values parties. In the light of the upcoming plebiscite and other issues, this is worth reflecting on.Thank you to all our faithful members and supporters and also to the many new supporters; many of which joined us with great enthusiasm in the last hour. We so appreciate the hours in prayer, on booths, letter boxing and promotions via social media. Please continue to prayer for our role in the future direction in Australian politics. We thank you all.
Michael Short, The Sunday Age Opinion Editor and Board Member of the Research Centre responsible for the study ‘Growing Up Queer’ has apparently transfigured himself into the Religion Editor with commentary in todays paper about the values associated with Jesus.
The one thing Short does get right is a reference to the biblical Golden Rule which is a tenet of civil society; ‘treat other people as you would like to be treated’. Short then uses his opinion piece as a means of deriding the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) for its hollow faith which he claims ‘tramples the very values commonly associated with Jesus’. Apparently ACL do this by their support for the current Marriage Act. As self appointed moral priest, Short announces that laws and people opposing same-sex marriage are ‘morally wrong’. How pluralistic.
With many loaded adjectives ACL are accused of being needlessly hurtful and disrespectful because of the view they hold. Sadly, this life is full of hurts and I don’t think we can limit this discussion to just one type of hurt when addressing such a significant social change.
For example, in September 2015 I stood on a marriage platform at a public rally with Millie Fontana who was raised in a same-sex family and she was hurt too.
Millie talked about her right: the rights of the child to a mother and father. Incidentally, Article 7 & 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child support preserving the identity of a child and offering every child the right to know and be cared for by their parents. But Millie talked more about hurts than rights. She referred to the ‘oppression’ when people tell children like her what it’s ok to feel. Millie loves her gay mums and her dad, but is a voice supporting the current Marriage Act. I don’t think we can call her homophobic or hollow.
Although she is not a Christian, Millie applauded ACL on their own platform and thanked Christians present for giving her a voice because as she said ‘no one else will.’ Millie doesn’t find ACL hurtful, but what she does find hurtful is the suggestion that biological parents in the life of a child doesn’t really matter.
As a fellow citizen who was also raised without a dad I have to wholeheartedly agree. Both fathers and mothers are incredibly important to children and their identity security. The hollow and heavy heart many children carry is often due to an absent parent. With the popularity of ancestry.com and programs like ‘Who do you think you are?’ anecdotally it seems clear a connection with our biological roots is food for the soul. Just ask our indigenous Australians.
Short’s mocking of references to the Stolen Generation as an ‘appalling and ridiculous argument’ should be considered in light of sentiments expressed by past Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In his apology Rudd said these children were ‘human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments’.
Why were they ‘damaged deeply’ if someone loved them? I would suggest they were damaged because they were deprived of their ethnic, cultural and biological identity normally provided by their natural environment. Shouldn’t we consider why any other group should be less damaged?
President Obama has on many occasions publicly lamented the pain of not growing up with a father in his own house and pointed to the connection of fatherlessness and violent crime. And former PM Prime Minister Julia Gillard when apologising for the forced adoption of babies referred to the ‘most primal and sacred bond there is: the bond between a mother and her baby’. Why is it these findings are now ‘appalling and ridiculous arguments?’
Treating other people the way we want to be treated would be allowing children the legal possibility of that important biological connection with mum and dad. If Short actually read the Bible he would know that ‘true religion’ is to care for orphans, not create them by design.
As Short turns to address ACL criticism of the Safe Schools Program it would appear he has little understanding of what Jesus actually valued. We can agree that no one should be bullied for any reason but despite Short’s claims, this is not what the the Safe Schools program is about at all.
I attended the launch of the Safe Schools Coalition and I have resources that were available on the day to promote the program. A flippant and hollow attitude toward sexual activity is expressed throughout this program. Should a school resource instruct children to ‘do it when they feel ready’, encourage experimentation, quote no minimum age and present a very casual attitude to sexually transmitted infections? Ironically it is those who care about the whole person and not just ‘the wibbly-wobbly bits’, as playfully described by the Safe Schools program, that are referred to as ‘hollow’. Perhaps Short ought to read a little more about Jesus and what he values.
Yes, Jesus takes the protection of children seriously and we should treat others the way we want to be treated. As a child of the sexual revolution myself I know, promiscuity hurts people; especially children. All children naturally desire to know who they are and central to this is a mother and a father. Denying this innate desire may create many more hollow hearts. That is a genuine concern many share with ACL.