It’s just as we feared

Throughout the marriage campaign, Australians were told they were being asked one question and one question only: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

Early on in the campaign, we pointed out that the proposed Dean Smith bill actually included writing ‘Gender Theory’ into the Marriage Act and also did not provide adequate protections for freedom of speech, conscience, religion and parental rights.

We were shouted down by Yes campaigners, who appeared insulted at the suggestion that there would be any consequences whatsoever to redefining marriage.

We were told time and again that we were voting solely for the “right” of same-sex attracted people to marry.

Millions of Australians voted Yes as a direct result of those assurances.

But a few short hours after the Yes result was announced, the Yes camp was no longer denying consequences. In fact, they appeared “shocked” that Australians might have believed there would be none.

Today The Australian reported that Senator Smith was now saying “his bill was well publicised before the postal survey commenced and the overwhelming Yes vote suggested people were comfortable with it”.


When we raised the bill, on numerous occasions, we were told it was irrelevant to the vote and the final bill would be worked out if a Yes result was returned.

We are now calling on the Australian Government to honour its word and respond to the millions of Australians who voted Yes based on assurances that freedoms would be protected.

Otherwise, it is  committing a gross betrayal of trust.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

11 Responses

  1. Ana

    Many Australians have fallen for the lie of “marriage equality”, as reflected in the survey. But where is equality for the children who will now have their right to a Mum and a Dad legally removed? Will there be equality for people who disagree with or question progressive gender ideology? If the new laws dictate complete acceptance of such theories either through compulsory education in schools or through restrictions to freedom of speech and religion, then we can be certain that the whole notion of “marriage equality” was never about “equality for all.”

    • Those who have been following the ever increasing demands of the gay rights movement in other countries and over a period of several decades knew only too well that this vote was never about equality. It has always been about destroying the whole concept of marriage , gender and also the deconstruction of the natural family.
      The “After the Ball” and “the Gay Manifesto” documents written in the 70’s were the beginning of a concerted effort to achieve all these aims and were explicit in their direction, citing a time frame of decades if necessary.
      The tragedy of this vote in Australia is that the Yes campaign have not only hoodwinked the govt and the general community with their lies and deception , but they have also hoodwinked and done a grave injustice to the gay community itself who stand to lose their present acceptance in a angry community.The outcomes of losing our freedoms is going to rebound very negatively on the gay community and the blame will be sheeted home to them in time to come.
      No one in their right mind seriously believes that two men or two women can form a genuine marriage . Same sex and gender diverse “marriage” , so called, will always be seen as nonsensical in private and held in silent disdain in public – no matter how hard you try with laws you cannot change peoples thoughts. There are many millions of Australians and countless millions of people throughout the world who believe that marriage is only for a man and a women. And those of us who believe marriage to be between a man and a women will strive with all our might to continue to carry that truth through to future generations – underpinned by the truth of nature , history, culture and yes, religion.
      The present Australian government , with the introduction of the Smith bill, is negligent in refusing to honour their promise of rights around freedom of speech , freedom in the practice of religion and the freedom of parental choice in the moral and sexual education of their children. In doing so they are sowing the seeds of great unrest in our society.

      • Michael

        “Let’s face the truth”,
        Thanks for your comment, including:–

        No one in their right mind seriously believes that two men or two women can form a genuine marriage.

        The LGBTIQA+ party doesn’t believe this either — this is why Yes campaign is partying so gaily, because they’re celebrating their triumph of deception over the people of Australia, both ‘gay’ and otherwise.

        Apparently, the Yes campaign has redefined the word ‘majority’, as they think Australians can’t tell the difference between an absolute majority of all eligible voters, and a majority of survey respondents. The 61% of survey respondents who voted Yes, forms only 48.9% of all eligible voters. Hmm, “maths equality” must mean that near enough is good enough, even though a majority of eligible voters did not vote Yes. Right up until the result was announced, the Yes campaign kept calling it a non-binding, non-compulsory survey, but now it’s a “majority vote”, which carries the great authority of the Australian people, according to hypocrite Bill Shorten, who blocked the original plan for a ballot box plebiscite run by the Australian Electoral Commission, and fought tooth and nail to stop the postal survey from going ahead. But it seems the survey was held so Coalition MPs could hide behind it, because they are too afraid to tell the truth about marriage and sexual behaviour. Apparently, they didn’t want their personal carriage on the taxpayer-funded gravy train to be derailed by false accusations of “bigotry and homophobia” from hostile media.

        The Yes campaign didn’t give Australians the freedom to know what they were being surveyed about. When the referendum on Australia becoming a republic was held in 1999, the government sent out a copy of the Constitution to every voter, with the proposed deletions clearly ruled out, and proposed additions in large print. Now, the government has deceived Australians by asking, “Should the law change to allow same-sex couples to marry”, when Senator Dean Smith’s bill will allow “any 2 people” to marry. The media keeps calling it the “same-sex marriage bill”, when it’s actually the “any 2 people marriage bill”. The government doesn’t want people to know the difference, for “any 2 people” can mean any 2 people, whether brother and brother, brother and sister, mother and daughter, teacher and student, doctor and patient, sex worker and client, to name a few.

        Perhaps the most important religious freedom Australians have, is the freedom to practise marriage independently from government. The Yes campaign doesn’t want people to know the difference between a civil marriage registration, and a genuine independent marriage. Marriage is a natural, exclusive sexual behaviour pattern and living arrangement between a man and woman, able to procreate new life, and immune to the harms of STDs. Marriage was not a created by the government. The Australian Constitution gave parliament the power to register marriages in order to protect women and children from abuse, to keep an independent record of inheritance apart from family Bibles and church records, and to provide a stable society to raise the next generation of taxpayers, which genuinely consummated marriages can produce naturally by themselves. Christians need to declare their independence from civil marriage registration and legal divorce (which no longer recognises or punishes the harm caused by adultery). A genuinely consummated marriage exists independently of a wedding ceremony and civil marriage registration, unlike the legal fiction of “any 2 people” marriage, which can’t exist without them.

        • Michael,

          Thanks for your comment. It was 500 years ago when Martin Luther realised that he no longer needed to pay his way to God. The practice of indulgences was established by the Catholic Church, and this practice was incorporated into one of the 7 sacraments called penance. It is now 161 years since my German forefathers came to Australia as free settlers, but they had come to Australia to escape religious persecution in Prussia. The Australian senate has recently voted to remove the criteria of marriage as an exclusive union between man and woman for life, and replaced this practice with an idea that “marriage is between any 2 people,” and this is based on the sexuality and gender theories. The Australian parliament exposed the lie about the change in law by informing the Australian public that there would be no amendments to the Smith’s Bill for religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech about the truth of marriage nor freedom for parents to choose the education for their children.

          The amended Marriage Act has now completely separated from a genuine Christian’s faith in their practice of “one flesh” union. This natural human behavioural practice will be identified as an “independent marriage.” I don’t think the politicians had thought that married couples like my husband and myself would become free from an amended Marriage Act, but politicians have become so ignorant about the harm caused to the public and society by deregulation and deinstitutionalisation such as Aged care and nursing home, psychiatric institutions, Tafe and University education, electricity, taxi industry and milk industry.

          • Michael

            Thanks for your comments, and for mentioning your forefathers, as this word reminds us that our Christian forefathers, together with our foremothers, practised a genuine one-flesh marriage, independent from government registration.

            Deregulation promises cheaper prices, but always ends up costing more, both for consumers and government. Tasmania had a self-sufficient hydro-electric scheme, long before clean, green energy became fashionable. But Tasmania’s forced participation in the national electricity market means importing dirty electricity from the mainland over the Basslink cable, whose capacity is just 1/3 of the 3,000MW that could have been generated by the Gordon-below-Franklin dam, the building of which was stopped by the High Court. The deregulation and breakup of the former Hydro-Electric Commission into three separate “government business enterprises” has meant higher prices, and lower energy security.

            Deregulation is simply an excuse for increased government control of people’s lives. Tasmania’s Reproductive Health Act (Access to Terminations) 2013 fully degregulates pregnancy, by legalising abortion until the moment of birth. Despite the scientific and medical truth that human life begins at conception, parliament has decided that unborn humans have no human rights. Doctors who oppose abortion are required by law to give patients a list of termination providers, and this applies even if the woman isn’t pregnant. The Act also creates “access zones” in which peaceful protest can be punished with maximums of 12 months in prison, and a fine of $11,550. Tasmanian courts have fined protesters for displaying quotations from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.

            These examples might seem “off topic” to some people, but Australians need to understand that by changing the Marriage Act to allow “2 people” marriage, federal parliament is completing the deregulation of civil marriage that began four decades ago, with no-fault divorce. To have a legal no-fault divorce, whose only requirement is an “irretrievable breakdown”, parliament had to change the law to remove adultery as a grounds for divorce. To remove adultery as a grounds for divorce, parliament had to change the law to remove sexual intercourse as a requirement for civil marriage. Only a man and a woman can commit adultery, so a legal system that recognised adultery as grounds for divorce, could only register genuine marriages. Parliament has now decided that any “2 people” can have “marriage equality” for civil marriage and legal divorce, because any “2 people” in any type of relationship can have an “irretrievable breakdown”.

            The LGBTIQA+ dictators, and their political collaborators, are going to try to use the legal “marriage of any 2 people” to impose their sexuality and gender theories on the whole of Australian society, including law, politics, churches, charities, and schools. For example, in a recent speech to the Australian Association of Social Workers, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said that churches need to “catch up” and accept “the science of sexual orientation and gender diversity”. He went on to say that changing the law is one thing, but people need to change their attitudes, because “it isn’t over for gays”. Just as the Tasmanian parliament has imposed its false beliefs about life before birth on the whole of society, so federal parliament so it will try to impose its false belief that “any 2 people” can be married. Australians need to wake up, and fight for their freedom of religion, speech, conscience, assembly, and freedom of education for their children.

            Justice Kirby and his parliamentary allies are trying to convince Australians that they can’t be married without a civil marriage registration, which is now “marriage of any 2 people”. Marriage is a naturally exclusive sexual behaviour pattern and living arrangement between a man and a woman, not a creation of the government. The Australian constitution’s marriage power does not extend to defining the origin, meaning, doctrine, and purpose of marriage for Christians, other religions, or conservative-minded secular Australians who continue to practise marriage independently of the government’s civil marriage registration. Section 116 of the constitution ensures parliament cannot make a law requiring a religious observance, so politicians don’t have the power to force Australians to accept the false idea that any “2 people” can be married. But of course, this won’t stop them from trying.

            It seems Australians MPs and Senators haven’t considered “marriage equality” at all. A marriage of “any 2 people” will allow children to be placed with unrelated adults as their legal parents, so children from two differnt rainbow families could be biological relatives without knowing it, and start a sexual relationship. The amended Smith bill still contains section 23B, prohibited relations, which disallows civil marriage registration for two brothers or two sisters in a loving committed relationship. In his second reading speech, Senator George Brandis said that “marriage equality” will remove the last vestige of discrimination and stigma against consenting adults in same-sex relationships. According to Justice Kirby’s “science of sexual orientation and gender diversity”, people can identify as having a different sex from their biological sex, so surely people can identify as having a different relationship from their biological relationship. So why hasn’t parliament granted “marriage equality” to same-sex couples who are biologically related, as they can identify as having a relationship to which their apparent biological relationship is irrelevant.

            The Senate has already passed the Smith bill, granting “marriage equality” to any 2 people in a loving and committed sexual relationship. As Attorney-General, Senator Brandis needs to consider that the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 gives equal protection from discrimination and government interference to all sexual relationships between consenting adults, and this includes adultery, consensual adult incest, and sex worker and client relationships. There can be no logical or legal grounds for denying “marriage equality” these relationships too. Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of “lawful sexual activity”, so parliament can’t give “marriage equality” to some “2 people” relationships, but not others.

            Changing the marriage law can’t change what marriage is in itself. If the government granted “marriage equality” to the “harlot marriage” of sex worker and client, this wouldn’t make their relationship a genuine marriage. Christians need to separate themselves from civil marriage registration and legal divorce, by practising their genuine one-flesh marriage independently. A genuine one-flesh marriage of a man and a woman is the only sexual relationship which makes it impossible to contract a sexually transmitted disease. Any children naturally born into this relationship grow up knowing their biological parents, having them both as male and female role models, and as a model of both sexes working together for a common purpose. Though we may be a minority, the governent and society need to acknowledge and respect the essential contribution an independent marriage practise makes to the life and health of this nation, just as they do for the farming minority, whose hard work and self-reliance keep the country going.

        • Michael,

          I agree with your comment. We’re going to be a minority group who practice “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife, but the Bible did warn us that narrow is the road which leads to eternal life and few find it.

          • Michael

            Today’s Mercury has an article about how important the farming minority is to the health and life of this nation. It says there should be a renewed and ongoing campaign to encourage healthy eating, as this benefits both growers and consumers. Likewise, the independent practise of one-flesh marriage benefits both the families involved, and the wider society.

            An independent marriage practise also involves the related states of singleness and widowhood, which form the ‘before’ and the ‘after’; and which differ from the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of civil marriage. For example, a genuinely single Christian will never have their singleness identified with the ‘single’ box ticked by the sexually active “bachelor married man” of popular culture. A genuine widow from a one-flesh marriage has every right to be recognised as a woman whose husband has died, and not as the amended Marriage Act subsection 42(10) calls her, “that party whose last spouse has died”. It’s dishonest of Andrew Leigh, MP for Fenner, to use the example, in his second reading speech (6th December), of a lesbian acquaintance, when “dealing with her partner’s will, she was forced to declare herself ‘never married’, rather than the way she feels -— widowed”, when this term has been deleted from the civil marriage law.

            Some of the second reading speeches from the House are quite depressing. Ross Hart, MP for Bass in Tasmania, says, “some are claiming that less than 50 per cent of eligible voters have supported a change in this legislation. I absolutely reject any such contention.” But this is what the ABS data show: the 7,817,247 Yes votes form only 48.84% of the 16,006,180 eligible voters. He goes on to say, “It is absolutely ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt to claim that either the defeated plebiscite or this survey required a majority of eligible voters to support the proposition.” According to Mr Hart, it really doesn’t matter whether the Yes campaign has a majority or not, because it doesn’t need one anyway.

            Yes, the Bible certainly tells us about the narrow winding way that few people find. But we must also let our light shine. As it gets darker, one’s little light will shine all the brighter. And we must be the salt of the earth. It takes only a little salt to flavour the whole dish.

            Whatever the laws of civil marriage, Australians are still free to practise genuine marriage independently. The government makes food health and safety regulations for restaurants and cafes, but people are still free to eat at home.

  2. It doesn’t surprise me that Senator Smith, said to be a committed christian, uses deceitful tactics to pull the wool over our eyes about the real agenda behind marriage equality.
    The yes vote was not a rejection of the arguments against marriage equality; how many yes voters even considered the compelling case against marriage equality?

    • Michael

      Thanks for your comment about Senator Dean Smith pulling the wool over people’s eyes. He can do this, because the Yes campaign has already used some of the wool from the LGBTIQA+ wolves in sheep’s clothing to fill Australian heads The sheep upon whose back Australia rode to prosperity has been well and truly fleeced.

  3. “gross betrayal of trust’ is in the DNA of politics.

  4. A black day for Australia. A dark day for the world as another nation legalizes thoroughly rotten moral behaviour and despicable human rights abuses against children.

    Folks! We are witnessing the fall of the modern Roman Empire with its political and renowned homosexual corruption.

    The lies, the deceit, the gross injustice against children is an indication this society is no longer fit for humans and we need to build another one where good character and human dignity rule not shamelessness and moral abasement.

Leave a comment