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

44 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.

  5. Michael

    As AMF’s article above shows, the Smith bill, which has now become the amended Marriage Act, includes the LGBTIQA+ sexuality and gender theories in its provisions for “two people” marriage. Here are a few quotes from Hansard on the marriage bill and proposed amendments.

    As Senator Eric Abetz (Tasmania) pointed out on 27/11:–

    The legislation before us is not restricted to same-sex couples; it goes a lot further. The explanatory memorandum tells us, under item 3, on the definition of marriage, at paragraph 13, that same-sex couples—and others—will be able to marry. It goes on:

    For example, this would include an intersex person … and a gender diverse person who is legally recognised as having a non-specific gender.

    The bill therefore goes further than that which was approved by the Australian people and adopts the ideology of gender fluidity, which is part of the much discredited and rightly reviled and Orwellianly misnamed Safe Schools program. If gender fluidity had been part of the campaign, the result may well have been different. If this was always intended then the question should have been explicit. Australians deserve an explanation as to why it wasn’t.
    So much for a simple amendment to allow gays to marry. The gender agenda is already being stretched and the bill goes a lot further than that for which the Australian people gave their approval. Many ‘yes’ voting Australians rightly feel betrayed that we are debating changes for which they did not vote.
    Yet now we are being asked to wave through the changes without any substantial protection to freedoms, such as parents’ rights to guide the moral education of their children, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, all of which are fundamental, well-established, internationally accepted rights enshrined in treaties and covenants—rights which are inalienable to each of us; rights which government can neither take away nor give, because they are inalienable.

    As the AMF article says, “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.” But Yes voting MPs in the House have cheerfully admitted there will be further consequences.

    Dr Anne Aly, MP for Cowan said on 6/12:–

    Whether we look at health and mental health services, bullying in schools, discrimination in our laws, harassment on the street or the stacked disadvantage facing the trans community and LGBTI people of colour, we know that there is a very long road to fairness ahead of us. But with the passing of marriage equality we take a giant leap forward. With that, I hope that LGBTI Australians can walk a little bit taller, a little bit prouder and a little bit louder in the steps to come, because I’ll be walking with you.

    Cathy McGowan, MP for Indi, also on 6/12:–

    Some people use gender neutral pronouns that don’t identify them as male or female: ze or ey. Some people change their pronouns. It’s a bit like how you change your name when you get married. Some people change the use of their pronouns. This can cause enormous resistance. People like myself say, ‘But you’re either/or.’ But in fact they’re saying, ‘No, we’re not polarised.’
    Why is this important and why do I bother to bring it to the House when we’re talking about marriage equality? Because, for me, this legislation is not only about same-sex couples; it’s about two people, however they define themselves.

    On religious freedom, Kevin Andrews, MP for Menzies, told the House, 7/12:–

    …as we are being assured collectively by the Labor Party and by others in this place, there are no adverse consequences of making this change to the legislation—and it’s been the assertion that has been put repeatedly during the long hours of this debate today that there are no adverse consequences—then they should support clause 1 of the amendments from the member for Corangamite [Sarah Henderson MP]. There are no explanatory memoranda and there’s no reference to international instruments, so this can be read and interpreted simply on the basis of the words that appear in the amendment itself:

    Nothing in this Act limits or derogates from the right of any person, in a lawful manner, to manifest his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

    If there are no adverse consequences, as we are repeatedly assured, then surely that provision can be supported. Otherwise, the words that we hear, contrary to the fact of how people vote, are basically worthless and meaningless so far as this debate is concerned.
    But I finish on the point that if the negative consequences that many people have warned about, who genuinely are concerned about them, come to pass, then I hope that those who have asserted boldly and blandly here that there are no such negative consequences will at least have the grace and humility to accept that they were wrong.

    Andrew Wilkie, MP for Denison, refused to support any amendments for protection of religious freedoms, saying on 7/12:–

    I say to the opponents of same-sex marriage: you’ve had your day. It is now time—it’s beyond time—for the members of the LGBTI community, many of whom are people of faith themselves, many of whom, as people of faith along with everyone else of faith, will continue to enjoy freedom of religion. But surely it’s time to give the LGBTI community freedom from religion. I will not support this amendment. The protections in the current bill are satisfactory.

    George Christensen, MP for Dawson, described the situation, 7/12:–

    What we’re talking about here is a similar sort of thing—protecting churches, church-run businesses and church-run services from activists who are going to want to litigate. There will be no protection for a commercially run church hall from being used for either a same-sex wedding ceremony or reception. There will be no protection for a church-run florist business who sells flowers in the foyer of a church as a side business to make income for the church when someone goes in to purchase those flowers. Those protections are not going to be there. There is laughter and tittering about that up in the galleries and down here. But, mark my words, something is going to happen—and, when it happens, people on this side of the chamber will be saying, ‘We told you so!’

    George Christensen MP also described what Andrew Wilkie’s “satisfactory protections” look like in Denmark and Sweden, 5/12:–

    But I have got to tell you about other countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised—I look at Denmark and I look at Sweden as examples. In Denmark, for example, the government of the day back in 2012 changed the law to say that pastors and ministers of the Church of Denmark must actually perform same-sex marriages. They must perform same-sex marriages or, if they want to object, they need to refer to a pastor who will perform the marriage within that church. I have to say that the law there has clamped down to erode that last right and now, basically, they have to perform it. It is the same in the Church of Sweden. This year the Prime Minister in Sweden said that all pastors in the Church of Sweden must perform same-sex marriages. So, when you have an example of two countries overseas where these protections for churches and pastors have not lasted, you have to say, ‘What hope is there for anyone else?’ That is why these protections that we are talking about are needed today.

    Lucy Wicks, MP for Roberston, whose 2016 speech “What if marriage is about more than love?” was covered by AMF, said, 7/12:–

    But what I’m particularly conscious of in this amendment is the need for parents to have a right to withdraw their children from classes where the material taught in the class conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs, as contained in clause 88R of these amendments. This is absolutely vital for two main reasons. Firstly, it highlights that these amendments are not just about religion, clergymen or weddings in churches; they are also about our families, our children, our grandchildren and their freedoms, because, without these amendments, will schools, parents and teachers fear that they cannot express clearly and publicly their relevant marriage belief? Surely they ought to be able to do so, if we truly believe in freedom of expression as a reflection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Otherwise, what is there to stop other possible consequences that we have not yet fully worked through as a nation, such as the compulsory adoption of gender neutral theory that we’re already seeing outworked in some programs like Safe Schools that we know so many Australians have already raised concerns about? As I said in my earlier speech to this House, we have never yet had an entire generation of children that have grown up without gender as a reference point in their lives. Many people here may be comfortable with that, but many people may not be. And, as such, parents ought to have the freedom and the right to withdraw their children from classes at school because of a relevant marriage belief.

    This for me is an important amendment to strengthen parental rights and to ensure they continue to be able to have a say over what their child is taught in class when it relates to their deeply held religious or conscientious belief. By accepting this amendment today, we are finding a way to carefully provide protections for people to articulate their longstanding beliefs on traditional marriage in a non-threatening way and to ensure we don’t create a different form of inequality in law by legislating equality for same-sex marriage.

    I would add that, if same-sex marriage is about legislating equality and freedom of choice, we need to be able to ensure that those same freedoms are also protected for those who still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are, of course, in this amendment, important provisions that these views must not harass or threaten, and that protections will not be available where the person seeking protection is themselves discriminating. So I commend this amendment to the House and urge other members to carefully consider it in this important time in our nation’s history.

    Senator Concetta Fierraventi-Wells had earlier told the Senate, 28/11:–

    I bet my bottom dollar that, if [such an] amendment is not passed, it won’t be too long before somebody is hauled up before some antidiscrimination board just because they dared to go out there and say, ‘Oh no, marriage is between a man and a woman.’ Let me give you an example. Recently I was at a nonsystemic Christian school and this was the very issue that was raised with me by parents. I bet my bottom dollar that it won’t be too long before such a suit will be brought by activists.

    • Michael,

      Thanks for your comments. The Australian way of life with all our freedoms including “live and let live” no longer exists because of the new civil totalitarian marriage practice. It is clearly obvious that the amended Marriage Act is completely independent from a genuine Christian’s belief in a “one flesh” union between husband and wife. The idea that “any 2 people can marry” in order to “become one” for legal government marriage benefits has never been encouraged nor promoted in the Bible. The Australian Federal Parliament can now regulate (control) the “yes” voters’ behaviours and practices, but it can no longer regulate (control) an exclusive union between husband and wife for life as this criteria was removed in the amended Marriage Act.

      • Michael

        Thanks for your succinct summary, that will help people in their own thinking, in conversation with others, and in writing letters to the editor, etc.

        Yes, it certainly is a totalitarian agenda. Yes voting MPs want to impose their false belief that people can’t be married without a civil marriage registration for “two people”. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told the House, 4/12:–

        we would be a stronger society if more people were married—and by that I mean formally, legally married

        Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says that people who don’t believe in “two people” marriage are un-Australian, 4/12:–

        After years of discrimination, disappointment and delay, it’s a chance to write into law a truth that we know in our hearts: marriage is defined by love and loyalty, not gender.
        Let me be clear, for me in voting for marriage equality, the campaigners for marriage equality have not just delivered equality for them[selves]; they have actually made the Australian identity better.

        Greens leader, Senator Richard di Natale, speaking while wearing rainbow-coloured sneakers, believes he’s making Australia a better place, 27/11:–

        I wear them [rainbow-coloured sneakers] to take inspiration from the change that we’re creating with our LGBTIQ communities to go on and work harder and continue to pound the pavement for equality and justice
        An Australia with marriage equality is a stronger, healthier, more loving country—one to grow up in and one to grow old in. Our campaign will continue until we get this done and until we end discrimination once and for all. This is a vote for optimism; it’s a vote for hope; it’s a vote for a better future. The movement for love is unstoppable.

        According to Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, is hateful, 27/11:–

        In a calculated and what I would call a hateful move, the Prime Minister [John Howard] sought to amend the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act legislation to be explicitly between a man and a woman.

        Senator Andrew Bartlett (Qld) called the “man and woman” Marriage Act, 27/11:–

        harmful, hurtful and hateful legislation that was guillotined through

        As a Yes campaigner, Senator Andrew Bartlett (Qld) agrees it’s not just about “same-sex marriage”, 27/11:–

        there is still plenty of unfinished business when it comes to discrimination with regard to people of all sexualities and transgender and intersex people.
        there is still so much fear and ignorance and misunderstanding. We still have a lot to do and a long way to go.

        Many politicians believe that even without amendments, the new Marriage Act has too much protection for religious freedom. Senator Richard di Natale (Vic) says, 27/11:–

        The bill before the Senate’s not perfect. It’s certainly not the bill that the Greens would have introduced, if it were up to us. We’re concerned that it perpetuates exemptions from antidiscrimination protections, certainly something the Greens don’t support.

        Senator Anne Urquhart (Tas) isn’t happy, 27/11:–

        This bill actually provides more significant religious freedoms than many people are comfortable with.

        Senator Helen Polley (Tas) echoes this sentiment, 27/11:–

        It’s important that we recognise that this reform will not simply end discrimination against same-sex-attracted people. As a parliament, we should be looking to remove any discrimination based on sexual orientation. This fight will continue regardless of this bill.

        The LGBTIQA+ party’s fight is a taxpayer-funded fight, as Senator Concetta Fierraventi-Wells points out, 27/11:–

        Regrettably, the vitriol seemed to have been primarily directed at the ‘no’ camp. Most of the calls to my office were rude and abusive. Whilst no federal moneys were provided to the respective camps, we did see taxpayers’ money and resources used. You could not walk through the CBD of Sydney without seeing the sea of ‘yes’ campaign flags, all funded by the City of Sydney ratepayers. You could not walk around Canberra without seeing the rainbow-coloured buses funded by the ACT taxpayer.

        The campaign to redefine marriage was well-resourced, funded and campaign hardened. It had advocated its position for more than a decade. Their campaign website boasted support from 884 corporations, including iconic Australian brands such as Qantas, CBA and the NRMA. CEOs were anxious to join the rainbow message, giving little or no thought to the views of their shareholders, workers, or, for that matter, using their money to fund a political cause like this. A conveniently overlooked statistic is that 16 million voters were eligible to participate and of those just 7.8 million returned a ‘yes’ on this survey form. This represents 48 per cent of the voting population. This is not the enormous majority that the elites are spinning. Indeed, it is not a majority at all.

        Some Australians didn’t even receive a survey form in the mail, including Senator Brian Burston (NSW), 27/11:–

        However, despite millions of Australians receiving their postal votes in the mail, there were many who did not receive their forms and so were deprived of their right to participate in this survey. I was one of those deprived Australians, robbed and denied the opportunity to express my democratic right to participate in this survey. I’ll further add that my vote would have been no.

        Senator Fraser Anning (Qld) pointed out (27/11) how silly it is for Senators to be touting the “majority Yes vote”, when the last election was for the full Senate, in which Senators needed only 7.7% of the vote to get in:–

        However, it is false to claim that simply because a majority have agreed to do something all parliamentary representatives are bound to support it. Governments rely on majorities. Senators, however, rely on only 7.7 per cent or 14.3 per cent of the vote [in a half-Senate election]. Otherwise there would never have been a Greens senator.

        Senator Brian Burston (NSW) spoke very well, 27/11:–

        Australia’s political and legal systems owe so much to Christianity and it is evident the foundations of the Australian nation and its laws have discernible Christian philosophical roots.
        Three months ago, when the postal vote process was announced, an Australian Marriage Forum spokesman stated that ‘no public vote, no parliament, no court have the authority to repeal nature and change the meaning of marriage’. Marriage is based upon an unchangeable truth that only man and woman can create new life; only man and woman can give a child a mother and a father, a biological identity and ancestry. No other relationship outside of a heterosexual relationship should be legislated as marriage, because marriage is divine and not merely a human institution.

        The demand to redefine marriage assumes that marriage is a matter of definition but this is not so, since marriage arises out of a description of a natural order—that is, the facts of human biology…. If human beings were naturally inclined to form homosexual unions then, over time, they would have become extinct. The survival of the human race and hence of the state depends on men and women having children and forming families and not homosexual unions. Water is H₂O and not CH₃CH₂OH, which is ethanol. They are both liquids. We cannot redefine CH₃CH₂OH as water, since it has a different structure. A union of female and male has a different structure from a homosexual union.
        Australia has an express provision in its Constitution granting federal parliament power to introduce legislation on the topic of marriage and correlating issues. ….The High Court has repeatedly affirmed that the connotation or meaning of a given word must remain fixed as it was established at the time the law was originally enacted. Under orthodox rules of Australian legal interpretation, the meaning to be given to a term is that which it had at the date of the Constitution—1900.
        According to the law of England, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman on the same basis as that on which the institution is recognised throughout Christendom and its essence is that it is a voluntary union, it is for life, it is between one man and one woman and it is to the exclusion of all others. There are many Australians who have sought to retain the definition of traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries and continue to view marriage as a special union between a man and a woman which allows for the creation and nurture of children. A change in civil law does not change the understanding of the nature of marriage as it is understood in the Christian tradition.

        For the LGBTI activists, the same-sex marriage campaign has never been about marriage; it has always been about power—the legal power that comes when same-sex and transgender marriage is enshrined in law. The power that emanates from this can be used a weapon for two specific purposes—namely, to control the education of our children and, secondly, to silence any dissenters. There is absolutely no justification for homosexual marriage in any human rights instrument. It is a legal fancy designed by the decadent West, with no foundation in nature or human culture. The millions of Australians who voted no and who are aware of the consequences of redefining marriage will be vigilant to any attempts by radicals who would impose their views of marriage and sexuality on our children and faith communities.

        Of course, “the millions of Australians who voted no” are haters who need to be dealt with, according to Senator Sarah Hansen-Young, 27/11:–

        We will stare down the haters.

        After describing a lunch with Rodney Croome, Senator Nick McKim (Tas) said that “staring down the haters” involves coming into your home, 27/11:–

        In 2005, I had a sushi lunch with Rodney Croome at which we decided to work together to draft and table bills to provide for same-sex marriage in Tasmania. We did so because both of us believed that if we could achieve marriage equality we would erase all other forms of discrimination faced by LGBTIQ people along the way.
        we cannot hope to remove discrimination from our streets, from our schools, from our footy clubs and from our homes until we have removed discrimination from our laws. …We need to show leadership to the people we represent in this place by removing discrimination from our law so we can show leadership in removing discrimination from our community.

        A third Greens Senator, Peter Whish-Wilson (Tas), describes this “leadership in removing discrimination”, 27/11:–

        I have listened to some absolute tripe in here about Christian values from your side of the chamber. ….when I think of Christianity and Jesus, I think of love, I think of compassion and I think of understanding
        So let’s cut the crap—all the religious crap.

        • Michael,

          Today (24/12/2017), the Guardian had a report on a “heterosexual marriage in order to avoid inheritance tax.” The elderly man in Ireland who had previously been married to a woman with children decided to marry his carer (a heterosexual man who had never been married and was his mate). He married his carer in order to give his house (tax free). The Australia government promised there would be no “slippery slope” from the legalisation of a “same-sex marriage,” but the “sham marriages” which include all the”becoming one for legal government marriage benefits” are now coming out of the closest like Pandora’s box. How will the Australian Federal Parliament be able to detect and prevent all the “sham marriages” from rorting the legal government marriage benefits? The only requirement of a legitimate marriage now is the purchase of a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony, but this was never considered to be a genuine “one flesh” marriage which could naturally procreate, nurture and raise new-life. The Australian government has effectively legalises corruption, and now they’re no longer protecting the public and society from harm including protecting Australians basic freedoms and a fair go for all Australians). This is like the nursing and midwifery, and medical regulations can’t protect the public from harm when nurses, midwives and doctors can legally kill unwanted neonates and terminally ill patients with their consent or the consent of the mother as there isn’t anything more harmful than death. A death-care practice is never real healthcare because if healthcare practitioners practised death-care on their family members they would be charged with murder. The Australia parliament has confused the meaning of biological sex, gender, sexual intercourse, sexual activity, sexual and non-sexual relationships, truth and lies, factual and fake, good and evil, moral and immoral. This will lead to falsification of laws, registration, certificates, documents and reports, and misleading, dishonest and inaccurate information, and inappropriate care and treatment which has no cover for profession indemnity insurance. It won’t be long before animals have more accurate information about their history than what people will have available. The new marriage registration form has Party A and Party B with gender X, and parents can be “unknown,” and the NSW birth certificate has parent 1 and parent 2 so children won’t even know who is their father and mother (biological parents). Can the grandparents now be parent 1 and parent 2 since the child’s father and mother are no longer a requirement in a NSW Birth certificate? The ABS census in the future can now only measure the amount of people “becoming one for legal government marriage benefits” as it won’t be able to measure the independence of “one flesh” union.

  6. Michael, thank you very much for that extensive summary of the speeches concerning amendments. I take it that you have reported all the parliamentarians who expressed concerns. Derryn Hinch is an interesting case. He went to jail twice for disobeying the law when his conscience strongly disagreed with the law. Where does he stand on others doing the same, like bakers refusing their services to same sex couples because their conscience tells them that same sex marriage is wrong, despite the being lawful. Would Derryn defend such a baker or would he thunder “the law must be obeyed; if you don’t like it then don’t be a baker”. He did not give up his career as a radio journalist because his conscience was in conflict with the law.

    • Michael

      David S.,
      Thanks for your comment. You’re spot on with your assessment of Senator Derryn Hinch, who said, 29/11:–

      I think of the LGBT people in this country this Christmas. When Christmas comes along and they are sitting there at the table, and suddenly a gay man finds out that his own dad voted no, how’s that going to be at their Christmas table in all the bonhomie of the Yuletide season? That’s what angers me about this. I voted the plebiscite down. My vote was one of the ones that killed the plebiscite, and I’m proud of it.

      Senator Hinch can’t see any connection between the freedoms he fought for in his own previous career, and the current situation. He made his position very clear, 29/11:–

      The intolerance has come from the ‘no’ vote. The intolerance has come from people like the Lyle Sheltons of the world

      Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW) tells Australians what tolerance must involve, 27/11:–

      To everyone who has kissed a partner in public in defiance of strange looks, who has educated a co-worker who used derogatory language about sexuality, who has stood up to a homophobic relative at a family dinner, this win is for and because of you….Our work here isn’t done.

      At one stage on 28/11, Senator Alexander Gallacher (SA) showed his tolerance by wearing a Yes badge while chairing the committee, and took it off only when Senator Ian Macdonald raised it as a point of order. (I had to cut out this exchange, as it made this comment too long).

      Senator Zed Seselja (ACT) shows what ‘tolerance’ really means, 27/11:–

      I was concerned to see at the University of Sydney a group of students who offered a free barbecue and an invitation to engage in conversation about these issues from the ‘no’ perspective physically and verbally abused and shouted down by ‘yes’ campaigners and the police needing to be involved to calm the situation. Heidi McIvor, one of the mums who featured in the ‘no’ campaign TV advertisements, received threats to burn down her church, the City Builders Church in Sale, where Heidi and her husband are both pastors. Their names and phone numbers were splashed all over Facebook and her husband was targeted with a steady stream of abuse. Dr Pansy Lai, who featured in the ‘no’ campaign TV advertisements, was targeted by a petition calling for her medical registration to be reviewed. She was threatened by people who called her medical clinic and said that they would turn up at her practice and that she had better ring security. A launch event in Melbourne was interrupted by gay marriage protesters yelling, ‘Crucify the Christians,’ and waving a banner declaring ‘Burn churches not queers’.

      Senator Eric Abetz (Tas) talks about what ‘diversity’ really means, 28/11:–

      It is bizarre in the extreme that those who have celebrated the outcome of the postal survey did so on the basis of the embrace of—dare I say the word—diversity. But now that they’ve got a win in a postal survey—and I’ll get to that later—they want to drop the blade on the D10 and just bulldoze forward without any concern about diversity. All of a sudden, diversity is no longer to be celebrated. There might be mums and dads concerned about the moral education of their children. Out the window! In my home state of Tasmania, Archbishop Porteous was taken, as it happens, to an antidiscrimination tribunal by an endorsed Greens’ candidate who only withdrew it when she realised the consequences electorally, and they then ran for cover. But the simple fact is: surely, an archbishop—Julian Porteous—is entitled to circulate to the Catholic school community in Tasmania a well-considered document on the Catholic church’s teachings on marriage. It wasn’t a frolic of his own. It was a considered document signed off by all the Catholic bishops in Australia—it was from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference—and given to students at Catholic schools to take home to their parents. This was considered by this Greens candidate as a huge affront to human rights.

      Senator Abetz concluded with, 28/11:–

      I am still very fundamentally of the view that, all things being equal, children are best brought up knowing the biological certainty of their parents and having the diversity of a male and female role model. Why else do people argue that we should have more women in parliament or on the Supreme Court benches? If all of a sudden women were no different from men, why EMILY’S List for the Australian Labor Party? There is a fundamental difference. In fact, the scientists tell us there are, I think, a thousand or more chromosomal differences between men and women. It’s a biological fact that there are differences. The reason that people argue we need more women in parliament is that women are different and make a different contribution. They provide, dare I say the word again, ‘diversity’ for parliament, for the boards of companies and for the Supreme Courts. But, for the most important role in society, the socialisation of the next generation, that diversity is, all of a sudden, no longer required. I say that I believe, if at all possible, it is desirable, and that is why people that want to express those views should be protected. For the sake of the children and the next generation, I fully support the amendments.

      However, some politicians such as Stephen Jones, MP for Whitlam, are going to betray their children to the LGBTIQA+ activists, and other sexual revolutionaries (5/12):–

      My two are aged 10 and 13. Like the statue of Lady Justice, I don’t know today who they will fall in love with. I don’t know whether they’re going to be straight or gay. But I do know that, because of what we are doing today, the law shall not discriminate. If they decide to marry somebody who they truly love, who are we to stand in their way?

      Senator Anthony Chisholm (Qld), 27/11, does the same:–

      My young children are inquisitive types, always asking questions, particularly my two eldest girls, who are almost nine—nine on Thursday—and six. Whenever they’ve asked about marriage over the years, my wife and I have always explained that we hope one day in the future people of the same sex will be able to marry. We have always taught our children that one day we hope this will become a reality.

      It’s hardly surprising that Greens leader, Senator Richard di Natale, follows suit, 27/11:–

      I want a future for my two boys where they grow up and thrive, where all people are treated fairly and with respect. I was talking to my younger son a few weeks ago about my job here in parliament. ‘Have you made any laws in parliament today, Dad?’ ‘Well, soon we’re going to change the law so that two men or two women can get married,’ I said to him. ‘Can’t they already do that?’ he said. It just didn’t make sense to him. ‘Not yet, mate.’ ‘Well, I’m going to marry Jesse when I grow up’ was his response. It doesn’t matter to me whether he does or doesn’t—that’s not the point. What’s important for him is that he understands that love is love.

      Andrew Broad, MP for Mallee, is more sensible, 5/12:–

      I believe there is an essential truth that cannot be replicated without the influence of both a man and a woman in a child’s development. A young girl between the ages of zero and five craves the nurturing abilities and closeness of her mother, and between the ages of five and 10 the positive influence of her dad is essential: to tell her she is beautiful and that she is worthwhile and precious in his sight. Fathers, I say to you: the best way to prevent your daughter getting stuck in an abusive relationship later in life is to instil a sense of self-worth in her early. Between the ages of 10 and 14, as her body changes, she needs her mum. Frankly, that’s a journey best walked with a woman. Between the ages of 14 and 18, the role of a dad is to take her on a date, open the door for her, teach her how a guy should treat her—with respect—and be a guard from guys who might come knocking, while ensuring that their intentions are pure. For too many, this has not been either their upbringing or their lived experience in their own relationships. I want to pay tribute to the many single parents who have raised amazing and well-balanced children under different circumstances to this; however, nothing is equal to, nothing replicates and nothing replaces the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman and the loving raising of children.

      Senator Janet Rice (Vic) on Safe Schools, 28/11:–

      We know that having programs like Safe Schools in schools saves lives. It is shown; it is proven.

      But Senator Rice didn’t show it, or prove it. Other Senators spoke on Safe Schools, including Senator Pauline Hanson (Qld), 28/11:–

      Another concern that has been raised by people in Australia is about the Safe Schools Program. Why are we pushing this in parts of this country in the school educational program? It is teaching kids about their body parts and everything. They are kids. Let them be children. I have no problem with teaching sexual education, but do it when they are reaching puberty at around 14 or 15. Don’t start messing around with the minds of young children in our educational system by pushing your own agenda. I think it’s disgraceful.

      Senator Barry O’Sullivan (Qld) on Safe Schools, 28/11:–

      …to the extent that I’ve had conversations with dozens upon dozens of parents about the Safe Schools Program, they indicated to me, quite properly, that as a school community they ought to have the right to veto the introduction of education modules, if you want to even call them that, into their schools, and then, notwithstanding that, that they would have the right to make decisions about their children not being exposed to educational material that did not fit with their value system, their moral system or their religious conscientious beliefs.

      Senator Seselja on Safe Schools, 28/11:–

      I want to make one other point in relation to Safe Schools and parental choice. When you ask virtually any parent faced In particular, experience overseas has shown that with same-sex marriage comes issues around parental choice, and I have highlighted some of those already. I firmly believe, and I think it should be relatively uncontroversial to say, that most Australian mums and dads believe that they get to have a say in what their kids are taught about values, about sex education, about gender and relationships.
      The Safe Schools program was in many cases introduced into schools without parents being aware of its contents. It taught about sexuality and gender in a way that most parents would not be comfortable with, and of course this happened before the laws were changed. We’ve now got a situation where the law will be changed. In other countries we have seen flow-on impacts, and it’s been harder for those individual parents who object to be able to object, as I’ve pointed out.

    • Michael

      David S.,
      My previous comment incorrectly referred to Senator Alexander Gallacher as wearing a Yes badge while being temporary chair of the Senate committee; it was in fact Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Tas) who did so, 28/11:–

      The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Whish-Wilson): What is your point of order, Senator Macdonald?

      Senator Ian Macdonald: Your ruling is wrong, as is your wearing of a badge that indicates a partisan view of the debate before the chair. You should be excused from the chair or you should take it off.

      The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That’s a fair enough point, Senator Macdonald. I didn’t take that into account when I sat in the chair. I will take the badge off for you. Do you have another point of order in relation to Senator Abetz?

      Senator Ian Macdonald: Senator Abetz was addressing through the chair and you’ve wrongly instructed him to do it. He wasn’t addressing Senator Siewert directly—

      The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I have made my ruling—

      Senator Ian Macdonald: as you can well see.

      The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Macdonald! I have made my ruling. Sit down!

      Senator Ian Macdonald: I was sitting down.

      • Michael,

        Thanks for all your comments on this blog as you really make me think outside the box. There has been behaviours and practices which the Australian governments (federal or state) have criminalised then legalised such as illegal drugs. In 1857, the Australian federal parliament criminalised (punished) the harm of adultery and breaking of the marriage oath in a legal divorce and this punishment was to deter and prevent marriage and family breakdown. In 1975, the Australian federal parliament decided to legalise the practice of adultery and the breakage of a marriage oath by creating a no fault divorce, this now has encouraged and promoted these harmful behaviour and practice in our society. Why would any genuine Christian want to make an amended Marriage Act with the expensive “cash cow wedding price tag,” and the amended Family Law Act with the expensive no fault divorce ($860 000 according to a recent report in the Guardian) to be both part of their Christian faith in the sacrament of marriage? This makes as much sense as the legalisation of prostitution being a part of a genuine Christian’s practice of health, life and wellbeing by having a “Harlot marriage.” When will all genuine Christians realise that a legal institute of marriage/ family (paper marriage/family) are like a legal institute of an orphanage which has created a paper orphan that has encourage harmful behaviours and practices? These institutions can never replace a real “one flesh” marriage nor a natural kinship family of father, mother and children. Genuine Christians are now able to freely practice a “one flesh” union (marriage) because independence from the amended Marriage Act and amended Family Law Act means they can now protect their “one flesh” union from the real harm of adultery and breakage of a marriage oath as these amended laws no longer regulate (control).

        • Michael

          Thanks for your kind words, and for your comments, which make me feel the same. Hopefully all these quotes from the parliamentary Handsard on this amended Marriage Act will be useful to AMF readers. Here are two more quotes pertinent to your comments,

          Senator Pauline Hanson said, 28/11:–

          My concern is that, in time to come, the parliament and its members could at any time change this to include multiple marriages or marriages of people under a certain age, and I don’t believe that will be the will of the people. If it were a referendum, it would be enshrined in the Constitution and could not be changed by parliament but only by the people. We see the ever-changing face of our society, where we know that there are multiple marriages in our communities, and yet it is not being addressed.
          Another part that I think people haven’t thought about is the children. I’m going to have my say now, because I need to look at what impact it is going to have on our society. About 11 per cent of gay couples now have children. Whether they’re from in-vitro fertilisation or former heterosexual marriages, the fact is there are children, and there will be an increasing number of children in these relationships. What will we do, as a society, when we get to the stage that these kids are starting to go to school? What will happen when you go to school, the teacher says, ‘I want you to draw a picture of your mum and dad or grandma and grandad and your house’ and all the rest of it? The kids will be saying, ‘What do I do? I don’t have a mum,’ or ‘I don’t have a dad.’ ‘It’s Peter and Sam,’ or ‘It’s Elizabeth and Amanda.’ They’re not known as mum and dad. Are we then going to say, ‘Oh well, we can’t discriminate against these children, so we must call their parents by their real name?’

          Is this the impact it is going to have on our educational system and in our school rooms? What about grandma and grandad? It’s all right for this generation but what about the next generation? No longer will you be able to call them grandma or grandad. These kids won’t have them.

          Have you thought beyond this?

          Ian Goodenough (Moore) told the House, 5/12:–

          I believe that the institution of marriage is predominantly for the purpose of the having and raising of children in a supportive environment by their biological parents. Of course I acknowledge that, in reality, marriage does not always result in children, and that, due to circumstances, children are not always raised by their biological parents nor in a supportive family environment. Traditional marriage is by no means perfect, but I believe, as many Australians do, that it is the best system which our society has, in the vast majority of cases, for raising children.

          Every child is conceived and born of a father and a mother. Every child should have the basic right to be raised by his or her parents, unless there are extenuating circumstances which prevent this. This is a social norm which the government ought to protect. Parents of opposite genders bring unique characteristics and traits, which enrich a child’s life with diversity. Where a child is separated from his or her biological father or mother due to unfortunate circumstances, then it is my belief that it is best that the child has access to a father figure and a mother figure to guide him or her to develop into a well-adjusted young adult. What I am saying may be controversial in today’s politically correct world. It may be called ‘old fashioned’. It may be called ‘conservative’. But it represents the family values which a significant proportion of the Australian population believes in, and I have every right to express this point of view without fear of persecution or prosecution.

          It is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to produce children without the involvement of a third party, a gamete donor or surrogate, using reproductive technology. This arrangement introduces the element of a third person into a marriage relationship and is one of the fundamental reasons for my objection to same-sex marriage.

          Consenting adults have a choice when deciding to enter into a relationship. I believe that the rights of the child in relation to his or her biological father and mother must also be taken into consideration. Is it ethical for government to normalise the separation of a child from his or her biological father or mother, merely by adult choice, without good reason? Children did not get a vote on this issue, yet future generations of children will be among the citizens most heavily impacted by this legislation.

          Needless to say, these and similiar speeches had absolutely no media coverage.

          Now that any “two people” can be married, the sole criterion for marriage is personhood. If biology is irrelevant to marriage, it’s also irrelevant to personhood. This can be seen in abortion law, where the neanate’s biological humanity doesn’t confer legal personhood. Therefore, any person will be able to marry any other thing which parliament might choose to endow with personhood. Many a grown man has kissed the bonnet of that special car with which he has a life-long, loving, committed relationship. If “love is love”, he should be able to celebrate his car registration certificate with a wedding ceremony, and call this relationship “marriage”.

          The amended Marriage Act allows civil marriage registration for “two people”, thus completing the deregulation of civil marriage that began in the 1970s with no-fault divorce, the sole criterion for which is “irretrievable breakdown”. Parliament has now removed the essential marriage qualification, a man and a woman, because it had already removed the essential marriage disqualification, adultery. Legal, fictional marriage is completely divorced from genuine, factual marriage. A legal marriage is no more a genuine marriage, than a legal abortion is a genuine birth.

    • Michael

      David S.,
      Further to your comments on Senator Derryn Hinch — as quoted above, he said he was angry, should gay Australians find out during Christmas dinner that their parents voted No in the postal survey. Senator Eric Abetz (Tas) responded to “Senator Hinch’s very stereotypical commentary”, 29/11:–

      He assumed and presumed to talk on behalf of gay people. As Senator Hinch and others in this place know, there are many gay people who voted no and advocated for the ‘no’ vote. So this attempt to pigeonhole everybody that might be gay or lesbian into a particular category does a great disservice to our fellow Australians. Just as much as there were good straight or heterosexual—to use those terms—men and women who voted yes for same-sex marriage, there were same-sex attracted people who voted no and advocated for the ‘no’ vote. That is where genuine tolerance comes into this debate—recognising that there are heterosexuals and homosexuals who do not fit your stereotypical view of the world. That is where I would just invite Senator Hinch to acknowledge that there are those varying views in the Australian community—and they are all valid views. They are all views that ought be allowed to be given expression.
      Whilst we are talking about percentages, I would note that over 50 per cent of the Australian population still identify as Christian, and there are a host of other religions as well. When you start adding them all up, dare I say it, you get close to that magic figure that Senator Hinch always likes to announce—namely, 62 per cent—in relation to the postal survey.
      when there is a 62 per cent majority of Australians that are of a religious belief, people like Senator Hinch don’t want to hear that 62 per cent figure, nor do they want to hear the figure in the same polls that were taken, which predicted the outcome of the survey, of an even greater majority in favour of protecting people’s freedoms. Those percentages, those figures, are conveniently discarded, ignored, as though they don’t exist. The simple fact is you can be a ‘yes’ voter—and I know many who did vote yes—but still believe in religious freedom, in freedom of speech, in conscientious objection, in parental rights and especially protections for charities which this Senate so arrogantly threw out last night.

      As mentioned above, Senator Hinch can’t see any connection between the freedoms he fought for in his own previous career, and the current situation. He made his position very clear, 29/11:–

      The intolerance has come from the ‘no’ vote. The intolerance has come from people like the Lyle Sheltons of the world

      Other MPs and Senators were likewise scathing in their condemnation of conservative politicians in general, and the Australian Christian Lobby in particular. Senator Lisa Singh (Tas) had already expressed such sentiments, 27/11:–

      let us not forget the terrible thing this survey has done. This survey has divided Australians and provided a voice for the worst and most despicable homophobic abuse. We’ve seen the ‘no’ campaign run a campaign that has attacked parents and alienated children. They didn’t tackle the issue of marriage. Instead, they ran a fear campaign that had nothing to do with marriage. Their actions have harmed all Australians.

      Senator Jenny McAllister (NSW) is horrified by Coalition for Marriage leaflets, 27/1:–

      As the chair of the Senate committee looking into the conduct of the postal survey, I have seen much of the material that’s been produced and distributed over the course of the campaign. This is material that has been put into people’s letterboxes, sent to them on Facebook and spray-painted on their homes. It has been cruel, it has been crude and it has been spiteful. What this material tells us is that there are still a small number of people out there—a very small number, I believe—who are highly motivated and who wish to roll back the rights that have been acquired by gay and lesbian Australians. Harm to the gay community is not merely an unfortunate collateral of their campaign. It was one of their primary goals.

      I invite Senator McAllister to read about the “cruel, crude and spiteful” spray-painting of my own marriage sign during the postal survey.

      Senator Sarah Hansen-Young (SA) continues in typical vein, 27/11:–

      Yet, unfortunately, we have a handful of ultraconservative right-wing MPs and senators who are trying to spoil the celebration and ignore the will of the people. Well, it is to their downfall and peril if they try to disrupt this progress now. They are like that annoying relative whom you invited to the wedding and you wished you bloody hadn’t! Go away. Sit down. Let the rest of us get on with the party. If you don’t have anything nice to say about anybody, please keep it to yourself. Fortunately, however, they are a shrinking rump in this place, and they won’t get their way.

      Senator Hansen-Young’s description of conservative Senators as a “shrinking rump” is quite ironic, considering what a “marriage” of two men involves.

      Adam Bandt (Melbourne), told the House on 5/12:–

      the nation is watching us closely and sizing up whether this place is up to the task they have set for us: whether or not we will finally vanquish the hard-right conservatives who have waged a holy war of bigotry on the LGBTIQ community for so long. They are holy warriors, led by the member for Warringah [Tony Abbott], insidiously spreading their hate and their fear for far too long.

      Greens leader, Senator Richard di Natale (Vic), told the Senate, 27/11:–

      Australia is not The Daily Telegraph; it’s not the Murdoch press. It’s not Sydney talkback, it’s not Alan Jones or Miranda Devine. Indeed, it’s not Senator Bernardi, Tony Abbott or Pauline Hanson. It’s none of those things. It’s sure as hell not the Australian Christian Lobby. Australians are much more generous and much more decent than that.

      Fellow Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas), concurred the next day, 28/11:–

      Last year we saw the Australian Christian Lobby establish the pro bono Human Rights Law Alliance. I’ll leave aside my observations about the hypocrisy of that name. But they established that alliance precisely for the purpose of litigating against LGBTIQ people, and the alliance is already running a number of cases on behalf of conservative Christians, including challenges to antidiscrimination law on the basis of the religious freedom provision in the Tasmanian Constitution, the constitution of my home state. Senator Canavan described this amendment as ‘a shield’. It’s not a shield; it’s a sword. It’s a sword that will be wielded by the conservative right against LGBTIQ people in this country, and that’s why it should be stridently opposed.

      Senator McKim was ably refuted by Senator Matt Canavan (Qld), 28/11:–

      I think Senator McKim has shown the emptiness of his contribution here. He’s actually confirmed for us the very points we are making by a snide remark that, because the Christian lobby has established a legal fund, that, somehow, in and of itself is a breach of human rights. If I’d been advising you, Senator McKim, I would have hidden my lamp behind a bushel a little bit during this debate, because I think you have shown us a bit too much there. The exact reason that this is being moved and debated is that some in this parliament, particularly the Australian Greens, have in the last year or so moved motions referring to those who support traditional marriage as bigots and calling those who potentially have those views from a religious viewpoint bigots. So the prospect that people won’t be free to practise their own religious viewpoints, coming from the likes of the Australian Greens, is already confirmed by their own behaviour leading up to and during this debate this evening.

      Ben Morton (Tangney) describes some of this behaviour by “love is love” advocates, 6/12:–

      There were unfortunate instances that disappointed me. In my own electorate, because of my support for letting the Australian people have their say, my office was vandalised. Signage in my community that includes my image and my contact details as a local member, which was completely unrelated to same-sex marriage, was vandalised. My image was transformed into Hitler’s and the word ‘Fascist’ was added with the words ‘marriage equality now’. Also added was that I’m a ‘gutless Liberal prick’ and I wanted to ‘waste $122 million of taxpayers’ money on a postal vote’.

      Many MPs simply spouted LGBTIQA+ slogans, like “love is love”. For example, Andrew Giles (Scullin), 5/12:–

      On marriage, the enactment of this bill into law would mean one thing: that all of us would be able to marry the person we love.

      Jason Falinski (Mackellar), 6/12:–

      this parliament should now allow people who love each other to marry.

      Justine Elliott (Richmond), 6/12:–

      I support marriage equality, as I believe that everyone should be able to marry the person they love. It’s as simple as that.

      Gai Brodtmann (Canberra), 6/12:–

      yes, this is about equality and, yes, this is about justice, but, most importantly, it is about love: the right of all Australians to love who they want.

      Rob Mitchell (McEwen), 6/12:–

      No more should we hear of ‘marriage equality’, because after this bill passes, marriage is marriage is marriage: a commitment between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.

      David Feeney (Batman), 6/12:–

      I believe that placing a restriction on marriage so that it can only occur between a man and a woman is not relevant to our modern and—for so many—secular society. What is important is that, when people find a loving relationship, their fellow Australians afford them dignity and respect for that relationship.

      The last speaker on 6/12 was Bob Katter (Kennedy), who’d had quite enough LGBTIQA+ propaganda for one day:–

      I’m glad I made a mistake and had to come down early so that I could hear the speeches, as I know now why I do not sit here and listen to speeches or question time. I have heard a conglomeration of snivelling drivel in my life, but there is not the slightest scintilla of intellectual content in any one of tonight’s speeches.
      Whilst you people are all piously holding your hand over your hearts and saying, ‘This is the best thing since Burke invented freedom and democracy,’ down in the pub, in the real world, where I live and other people live, I walked into the pub and said, ‘Bobby, I’m going bush, mate, before they make it compulsory,’ and everyone roared laughing. But you don’t live in that world. You don’t live in that world where real people live. You live down here, where you listen to this incredible concoction of drivel.

      There are more quotes from Bob Katter on the previous page.

  7. Genuine Christians need to identify their “one flesh” union (marriage) as independent from the amended Australian Marriage Act because the legal institute of marriage and family are destroying the lives of people including children which impacts negatively on society. Today, the Guardian reported about the high cost of a no fault divorce such as $860 000 for the Family Court to deal with a civil registered marriage and civil family breakdown. A legal marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony doesn’t keep together a “civil registered marriage between any 2 people.” A legitimate “Harlot marriage” isn’t a genuine “one flesh” union between a husband and wife, so genuine Christians have to be independent from this new belief in the ideas of the sexuality and gender theories. I now identify as “independent” or “indep,” rather than the word “Mrs” on any public government documents because I want the government authorities to know that I’m independent from the sexuality and gender theories so they don’t force these new ideas on my way of life. The ABS census in the future can only measure the amount of people identifying with this new idea of civil registered marriage which now means “become one for legal government marriage benefits.” The natural human behaviour of “one flesh” union between husband and wife has now identified as an “independent union” which is completely separated from this new deregulated civil registered marriage practice. I don’t want the status of “civil registered marriage,” nor the legal government benefits of welfare nor immigration nor access to the no fault divorce as these practices don’t keep together a genuine “one flesh” union (marriage) nor procreate their natural family. Genuine Christians will freely communicate in their home and church their natural human behavioural practice of their “one flesh” marriage so their children understand the truth about a lifelong, faithful sexual intercourse to prevent contracting STDs which lead to infertility, cancers, illnesses and shorten life-cycle. Also, a “one flesh” marriage makes it impossible to have a child out of wedlock (a marriage oath) as an unplanned and unwanted baby leads to the idea of an abortion. The Australian authorities can now publicly regulate (control) the scientific experimentation of human reproduction since natural human reproduction is no longer regulated by the amended Marriage Act. Australians have entered a “Brave New World” as the Judea-Christian laws such as the harm of adultery and breakage of the marriage oath have both been removed from the amended Marriage Act and the Family Law Act.

    • Michael

      Ind. Janine,
      Thanks for your comment! Yes, the cost of civil marriage and no-fault divorce in enormous, in both financial and health terms, with lost economic productivity, more poverty especially for women and children; mental health/depression, relationship problems, domestic violence, poor general health, more strain on doctors/mental health budget, and higher taxes for everyone. A colleague recently finalised a legal divorce which had taken 12 years, and the latest court action saw her husband’s lawyers trying to call her 85-year-old mother as a witness against her.

      The amended Marriage Act allows civil marriage registration for “two people”, thus completing the deregulation of civil marriage that began in the 1970s with no-fault divorce, the sole criterion for which is “irretrievable breakdown”. Parliament has removed the essential marriage qualification, a man and a woman, because it had already removed the essential marriage disqualification, adultery. Even before “same-sex marriage”, government agencies and private companies have long treated genuine husbands and wives as merely “two people”. For example, council rate notices are addressed to “Mrs FG Smith & Mr JF Smith”, instead of “Mr & Mrs JF Smith”. This sometimes happens even with Christmas cards. Privacy regulations mean you can’t ring up a retailer and buy something with your wife’s debit card, because in their eyes, a married couple is “two people”, not “one flesh”.

      The Yes campaign expects all Australians to believe that you can’t be married without a civil marriage registration, as quotes above from PM Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten show. Andrew Gee (Calare), also takes this line, 6/12:–

      Some in our region may find this change in how marriage is defined difficult to accept and reconcile. It is a significant change, but I ask those people to try to accept it because now is the time for the nation to come together. We should unite across city communities and country communities. Everyone, no matter how they voted, across Calare and across Australia, should now unify.

      However, Senator Fraser Anning said, 29/11:–

      It is one thing to pass a law to allow consenting adults to solemnise their relationships, but it is quite another to pass a law to force the rest of us to be solemnised as well.

      A number of MPs are using fake science to support “two people” marriage, for example, Dr Mike Freelander (Macarthur), 6/12:–

      As a paediatrician for nearly 40 years, I and the research can assure you it’s biology. It’s nothing other than biology. The notion that a person can somehow choose their sexual orientation is not only abhorrent; it’s scientifically and medically disproved. One only has to look at the recent research into the genetics and biology of siblings, and indeed twins, who identify as LGBTIQ to see that there is clear evidence that suggests that genes and biology have the major role to play in an individual’s sexuality. I really think some of the arguments that are being proposed are not only spurious; they’re nasty; they’re small-minded. They do not really deal with reality and it’s time to dispel them.

      It’s Dr Freelander who refuses to “deal with reality”, and acknowledge the self-evident truth about the human body. Imagine if he said that “no smoking” signs were “nasty and small-minded”, because an individual’s respiratory oreintation is determined by biology. Other MPs were also busy pushing fake science, by implying that society’s attitudes toward homosexuality are responsible for HIV/AIDS. For example, Anthony Albanese (Grayndler), 6/12:–

      When I was first elected, there were very real circumstances of partners of loved ones being denied access to their partners when they were in hospital. There were issues whereby couples who shared houses were thrown out of the house that they had lived in with their partner because of non-acceptance by the family of that partner. The scourge, of course, of HIV-AIDS was still having a massive impact—including, of course, taking the life of Paul O’Grady, who showed his courage once again in openly declaring that he was HIV-positive and therefore being able to lead a campaign for the care that was required. Of course, Neal Blewett, as health minister in the Labor government, led the world in responding to the HIV-AIDS epidemic, literally resulting in thousands of lives being saved.

      Senator Richard di Natale on HIV, 27/11:–

      For many, their activism was not simply about equality; it was about survival—those pioneers and activists who fought so hard for so many years. Many of them, lost to the HIV epidemic, are no longer with us. I take a moment to honour their memory.

      Sussan Ley (Farrer), on HIV, 5/12:–

      That year [1982], Australia saw its first case of AIDS, and gay people, gay men, were most unfairly targeted as being somehow responsible or, indeed, only having themselves to blame if they were stricken with this awful disease.

      Bob Katter (Kennedy), refuted these MPs, 6/12:–

      You talk about equality. They wanted equality in the giving of blood. They said, ‘We as homosexuals have a right to give blood,’ so they did, and I think 72 children were injected with AIDS from the blood that was given. It was hushed up. It was amazing to me that it never got any publicity at all. I actually had to ring up to verify whether the newspaper report I’d read was correct. There were 724 AIDS cases in this country, and no-one ever brought up the fact all of those AIDS cases, apart from the poor little children who got it through blood transfusion—whatever figure it was—were either intravenous drug users or men participating in homosexual behaviour. There were only two out of 724 cases that claim they weren’t, and the report noted that they were living with an at-risk person—in other words, a homosexual person. So there was no such thing as AIDS in this country except within that narrow group of intravenous drug users and people participating in that sort of behaviour.

      On 6/12, the previously quoted Dr Mike Freelander (Macarthur), said:–

      There’s no connection between marriage equality and Safe Schools programs and things like this.

      Dr Freelander’s fellow Yes campaingers are more honest, such as Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW), 27/11:–

      To everyone who has paraded in the Mardi Gras, marched at marriage equality or Safe Schools rallies, been involved in queer collectives on campus or held a fundraiser, film screening or information night, this win is for and because of you.

      Adam Bandt (Melbourne) also connects “marriage equality” with Safe Schools, 7/l2:–

      What I know, from having spoken directly to some of the people who’ve been involved, is that programs at school, like Safe Schools, save lives. They save lives. That should be the first priority of anyone in the House. So, if you want to talk about protection, then let’s talk about the protection of every young child in Australia who is listening to this debate, or whose parents are listening to this debate and have to intervene and turn down the television at a particular point in time when another bit of hate speech comes on. Let’s use this opportunity to send the message to them that they and their families are loved, and that, when it comes to protection, what we will put first is children and families and that we will recognise that, in Australia in the 21st century, love makes a family.

      Adam Bandt refutes himself — he believes people are born gay, but he won’t lift a finger to stop unborn gay babies from being flushed down the toilet by legal chemical abortion. Indeed, fellow Yes MP, Pat Conroy (Shortland) told the House, 6/12:–

      We did haven’t a plebiscite when IVF was debated, when RU 486 was debated or when the state parliaments debated decriminalising homosexuality. Not a single one of those required a plebiscite or a non-binding postal survey, yet they were undeniably issues of fundamental morality equal to what we’re debating now.

      With shades of the thousand-year reich, Attorney-General George Brandis told the Senate, 28/11:–

      I predict that, like the 1967 referendum, this decision by the Australian people, enabled by their government and enacted by their parliament, will come to be seen as one of those occasional shining moments that stand out in our nation’s history about which people will still speak with admiration in decades, indeed centuries, to come as one of those breakthroughs that has, as the will of history turns, defined us as a people.

      And of course, Senator Brandis is about to be rewarded with the job of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

      Bob Katter (Kennedy) summed up, 7/12:–

      why do they use that name [the word ‘gay’]? ‘Because it’s a lovely name. We think we’ll call ourselves a lovely name.’ They take the most beautiful word in the English language and take it for themselves. I think you’ve got a damned hide to be perfectly honest with you. I think you’ve got a damned hide and an inflated opinion of yourself, as well. And the rest of the world would agree with what I have just said.
      they want to take our name, the name we give to a man and a wife coming together to protect the future generations with children, for themselves. They took the world ‘gay’ off us, and now they’re taking the world ‘marriage’ off us. And when we ask for religious freedoms in this place from a bunch of bludgerigars over here, who have no conscience at all except for the endorsement of the Labor Party as their conscience and their compass, not one of them stood up for religious freedom in this place. That is a message that I will remind voters about at the next election, because there’s still a damn lot of people in this country that do believe that we should love our neighbour—the Christian principle. There are still people in this country that believe that and believe they have the right to have a moral opinion. Obviously, these people here, attempting to intimidate the parliament, don’t believe we should have that right. I have seen you before, because you were out there running around with your Mao Zedong books, back in the sixties. I’ve seen you before! So try your intimidation on, and enjoy yourself down here, but I’ll see you back in the land of the people, and you won’t be quite so popular there, I can tell you.

      • Michael,

        Thanks for your detailed comments.

      • Michael,

        You can read in the Guardian (online) all the praise the people received who identify with LGBTIAQ for creating a “heterosexual marriage” for 2 Irish men who got married in order to avoid inheritance tax. I bet the “cuffing marriage” will be next to come out of the closet, and the “Harlot marriage” will be the last to come out of Pandora’s box. The Australian government will be financially bankrupt before it realises their stupidity for their support in the idea of “marriage equality.” How will the government discriminate against non-taxable income from taxable income, especially when everyone can be related by a paper marriage and paper family?

        My son doesn’t have to pay GST to the government when he drives me around the city, but he would have to pay GST if he drove any unrelated people around the city and charged them for his service. Healthcare practitioners care for themselves and their families without paying income tax for their service, so they could demand “income equality” in order to avoid paying tax on their income, as the payment for service could be viewed as money given to a family member. Would the Australian Federal Parliament be so foolish to establish a death penalty law if 48.86% of all eligible voters wanted to change to the law?

        What will happen to the Australian way of life if more than 50% of all eligible voters in Australia have an IQ less than 100? The foolish thinking of Australian Federal Parliament makes some of them think that the 51.14% of all eligible voters who were non-“Yes” voters, will somehow magically unify their thinking with the “yes” voters. If all the “yes” voters (48.86%) believed that people should no longer discriminate between the greater light of the day with the lesser light of the night, so all light would now be called the “sun.” The Australian Federal Parliament wouldn’t be able to unify Australians by establishing an anti-discrimination act which made it a criminal offence to publicly identify the “sun” as being different from the “moon.” How can the Australian Federal Parliament unify the 51.14% of “No voters” and people who were undecided and or didn’t vote “Yes” with an idea that “any 2 people can marry” which is based on the sexuality and gender theories that they don’t believe in for themselves nor their family?

        The false claim that people are discriminating against people who identify as LGBTIAQ when genuine Christians refuse to participate in a legal same-sex marriage are as false as the claims of discrimination against pregnant women and terminally ill patients, when healthcare practitioners refuse to participate in a legal abortion and or a legal voluntary assisted dying practice. Healthcare practitioners and genuine Christians aren’t discriminating against the person, but they’re discriminating against legal harmful behavioural practices which are different to their own beliefs in the sanctity of life and the sacrament of “one flesh” marriage. It is possible to confuse a child by telling them, “do not to murder as this is wrong/immoral,” but then tell them that the Victorian law allows the just killing of unwanted neonates and terminally ill patients with their consent or the consent of the mother because they are better off as dead or treated as bodily waste products. These harmful behavioural practices create the idea that some lives matter whilst others don’t matter at all, and this doesn’t create a fair society for all Australians as unwanted neonates nor terminally ill patients aren’t given a fair chance to live.

  8. Michael,

    Thanks for your detailed comments. It is interesting reflecting back over the years in Australia when the idea of “marriage equality” was forced throughout Australia by the media in 2015. The Australian Federal Parliament, LGBTIAQ party activists with the Christian Marriage Equality Activists promised no “slippery slope,” but the recent report in the Guardian of a marriage between 2 heterosexual Irish men in order for them to avoid inheritance tax, this now means all types of self-identified marriages can come out of the closet or Pandora’s box . This “heterosexual marriage” clearly showed evidence that the amended Marriage Act has changed the meaning of the word “marry” to now mean “become one,” and the word “civil registered marriage” now means “to become one for legal government marriage benefits.” Australians use to think “heterosexual marriage” meant a marriage between a male and female, but this was misleading as the word “heterosexual” only refers to a person’s sexual orientation and this is completely separated from biological sex. The LGBTIAQ party dictators completely rejected marriage between a man and a women because this would have discriminated against 2 heterosexual men and 2 heterosexual women from their right to a “heterosexual marriage.” A “heterosexual marriage” and a “homosexual marriage” are equal in that these are both a person’s sexual orientation and not the type of sexual relationship experienced.

    The Australian Federal Parliament had punished (criminalised) the harmful acts of adultery and breakage of a marriage oath (contract) in a legal divorce, until the legalisation of a no fault divorce practice in 1975, and this legalised the behaviour of adultery which can only happen between a man and a woman. The Australian Federal Parliament recently amended the Marriage Act so “any 2 people can marry.” This means this amended Marriage Act now equals the amended Family Law Act to now encourage and promote the acts of adultery and no fault divorce practice throughout society, and especially in a “Harlot marriage.” However, the State and territorial governments are responsible for the laws and regulations controlling adult consensual relationship between a sex worker and their client, but now this will come into conflict with the amended Marriage Act because a sex worker and their client are “any 2 people who can marry,” so they have a right to a “Harlot marriage.” A sex worker and client can become one by a commitment to “love” for money and sex for the purpose of legal government marriage benefits. The Australian Federal Parliament doesn’t know how to discriminate fairly between different identities. It has been accused that they didn’t know if they were Arthur or Martha in the debate for IVF sex selection. This problem has been created by the fact that most politicians don’t understand basic factual science, and they can be persuaded to believe in anti-vaccination, blood donation by men who have sex with men, and other fake science, dodgy data and fuzzy facts.

    Australian laws are suppose to detect, prevent and or criminalise harmful behaviours and practice in order to protect the public and society from harm (including protecting Australians most basic freedoms and a fair go for all Australians). The Australian Federal Parliament recently established a law to detect, prevent and criminalise the harm of foreign interference in the Australian Parliament’s democracy, and this new law included public registration. Will the reputation of Australians increase by them voluntarily placing their name on this new public registry, just like same-sex partners who voluntarily place their name on a public marriage registry or will their reputation decrease when they are forced to go on this new public registry like sex workers who are currently forced to place their name on a public prostitution registry in NSW? The history of the Institute of Prostitution hasn’t always been criminalised in the western world, and there are countries such as Germany which have legalised the practice of prostitution. However, the idea of encouraging and promoting legalised adult consensual relationship between a sex worker and their client via an amended Marriage Act is just like the idea of encouraging and promoting legalised adult consensual relationship between same-sex partners. The Australian Federal Parliament has a right to establish laws and regulations in order to deter and or prevent harmful behaviours by criminalising and or legalising practices In order to protect the public and society from harm, but it doesn’t have a right to encourage and promote legalised harmful behaviours via a deregulated civil registered marriage practice as this will never protect the public from the harm of adultery and the harm to society by breaking a marriage oath.

    Today, The Age reported the judicial courts were struggling to deal with the people who weren’t paying for their fines on tolled roads such as Eastern link (Breeze) and City Link. The punishment of a fine is suppose to prevent people from using tolled roads without payment, and the punishment of the court is suppose to deter people from avoiding to pay their fine. However, this practice of criminalising an unpaid fine is no longer working in Australia because the judicial courts haven’t got the time to punish this type of behaviour, and there are low income families who don’t have the money to pay the fine, let alone the court costs. Unfortunately, many politicians, teachers and parents in Australia no longer understand the basic function of laws and regulations regarding the Institute of marriage and divorce. The Family Court is struggling to cope with the amount of no fault divorce, and if the current price of a no fault divorce is $860 000 (as recently reported in the Guardian), then the Family court will only increase their price claiming it will deter more divorces in the future. The expensive “cash cow wedding price tag” – $20 000 – $1 000 000+ for a wedding ceremony, reception and honeymoon are definitely preventing people from identifying with the legal Institute of Marriage, and as the price continues to increase this will prevent more people entering into the institute of a marriage. Why would the Christian Church want to continue in the practice of identifying the institute of marriage/family/divorce with the sacrament of marriage? The corrupt deregulated civil registered marriage practice with a corrupt no fault divorce practice which encourages and promotes marriage and family breakdown, this is just like the sacrament of penance was corrupted with the practice of indulgences, despite the fact that money could never pay for sin? The Biblical truth about “one flesh” union (marriage) which creates a natural family kinship which is broken down by worldly lies of fantasy and delusion leading to adultery and then separation and a divorce.

    The new Marriage Registration form now has been amended with Party A and Party B, and gender X, and this makes it obvious to any genuine Christian that this amended Marriage Act and amended Family Law Act aren’t part of the Christian belief in the sacrament of marriage. It’s time for Australians and the Australian Federal Parliament to accept the independence of genuine Christians in order to protect their “one flesh” union (marriage) from the harm of legalised adultery and legalised breakage of a marriage oath in a no fault divorce. The encouragement and promotion of legalised adultery is evident in the public advertising of Ashley Madison – “have an affair,” and the legalised breakage of a marriage oath is evident from a Sydney lawyer who has advertised his free pro bono services to a Christian married couple (Nick and Sarah Jensen) for a no fault divorce because they don’t believe “marriage is between any 2 people,” which is based on the sexuality and gender theories and they reject these theories for themselves and their family.

    The legalisation of adultery and breakage of a marriage oath in Australian society has meant that advertising companies have rejected advertisements which encourage and promote a marriage as a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” union between a man and woman, because this “one flesh” union has discriminated against sexual relationships which all can spread STDs throughout society leading to infertility, cancer, illness, disease, and shorten life-cycle from abortion, abuse, violence, suicide and even murder. A “one flesh” union (marriage) is the only sexual relationship which makes it impossible to contract and spread a STD. Also, it is the only living arrangement where children can be naturally procreated, nurtured and raised by their biological parents for life, and with both a male and female role model. Plus, a “one flesh” union (marriage) makes it impossible to have a child out of wedlock which significantly decreases the risk of an unwanted pregnancy which leads to an unwanted abortion with the complications of death for both mother and unborn child. A “one flesh” union (marriage) encourages and promotes natural human reproduction and a healthy lifestyle for a natural family.

    How do parents teach their children natural human reproduction and a healthy family lifestyle? This is very difficult to teach children when there is a no fault divorce law which encourages and promotes the act of adultery which is a practice of breaking a marriage oath, and this harmful behavioural practice is rewarded in the amended Family Act. The amended Marriage Act supports and protects the idea that “any 2 people can marry,” and this means the “Harlot marriage” can no longer be discriminated against, nor can sex workers and their clients be treated as second class citizens by taxing the sex workers payment for sex , nor can the “Happy Harlots” be discriminated against by the Safe School Program, nor can the “Scarlet Alliance” be discriminated against by the “gay and straight alliance.” A “Harlot marriage” is genderless, non-discriminative, non-procreative and non-exclusive so it meets the criteria of “marriage equality.” Government authorities are attacking people’s homophobia so I can only imagine how much worse they will attack a phobia of “prostitution.” Welfare agencies will tell people to just think that sex work is like exploring their sexuality, or a one night stand or as money given to one’s spouse.

    Genuine Christian will identify their public independence from the amended Marriage Act and amended Family Law Act in order to defend their right to decide the education for their children, and protect their freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom to publicly practice their religion.

    • Michael

      Ind. Janine,
      Thanks for your comment, which is a really good summary of the whole situation. Australia’s Yes voting MPs and Senators don’t realise that their comments and behaviour have more fully revealed their lack of integrity and ability for critical thinking, and greatly contributed to the low standing politicians currently have in the wider society.

      💡 Maybe the federal, state and territory governments can solve the problem of unpaid fines by transporting their convicts somewhere else!

      As you point out, a civil marriage of any “two people” allows a “heterosexual marriage” between two men. In parliament last December, Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie (Denison), and Tasmanian Senators Nick McKim, Anne Urquhart, and Lisa Singh, all cited Tasmania’s register of “Significant Relationships”, established in 2003, as an important step on the road to “marriage equality”. In this Tasmanian law, a “significant relationship” isn’t limited to sexual relationships, and can include a mother and adult daughter who live together, or two brothers, or a sick person and their carer, and so on. Both state and federal law prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”, so there is no logical or legal reason to grant “marriage equality” to homosexual same-sex couples, while denying it to non-homosexual same-sex couples, as both can be legally registered on Tasmania’s Significant Relationships Register.

      Ever since the family law reforms of the 1970s, there has been no requirement in Australian law for a marriage to be consummated by sexual intercourse. The amended Marriage Act likewise has no requirement for a marriage of “two people” to be “consummated” by a sexual act of any kind.

      The Yes campaign said:–
      ➡ Love is love;
      ➡ Marriage has no gender;
      ➡ Marriage is about love and commitment;

      Therefore, parliament can’t give “marriage equality” to “two people” in a sexual relationship, while denying it to “two people” in a non-sexual relationship, as both types are equally capable of love and commitment. Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of “lawful sexual activity”, but it’s just as lawful to have no sexual activity in a civil marriage, so it’s discriminatory not to grant “marriage equality” to loving and committed non-sexual couples.

      This week, the Mecury recapped the year in State parliament, and gave the “parliamentary speech of the year” to Franklin Liberal Nic Street MHA, for “ripping into the No campaign”, in a speech on 21 September:–

      It would not be compulsory to teach gay sex behaviour or technique at school, as some have suggested. Children will not be more sexualised as a result of legalising same-sex marriage. Any suggestion to the contrary is rightly and deeply offensive to the LGBTI community. As for people’s concerns about role playing, who do they think plays Mary in a nativity play at an all-boy’s school? I am quite confident that role play will not have any effect on future behaviour. I was once dressed as a sheep at primary school. To this day, I can drive along the Midlands Highway without having to pull my car over and leap the fence in a single bound and munch on grass.
      One of the most insulting arguments against same-sex marriage is that there is some mythical gold standard for raising children that centres on a mother and a father. [etc, etc.]

      Mr Street believes that making children role play same-sex relationships “will not have any effect on future behaviour”. Perhaps this is based on his own behaviour. When a local councillor (Kingborough), Mr Street once tweeted that a female airline passenger, a “bitch”, deserved a “smack in the head” for reclining her seat in front of him. Apparently, Mr Street now believes he can eliminate violence against women, by mincing about in knee-length high-heeled boots, as he did at the “Walk a Mile in their Shoes” event, held by Harcourts real estate on September 1, 2017.

      Nic Street entered parliament following a countback after Paul Harriss (sic) resigned in 2016. The next election is due in March. If the Liberals cannot hold their current three seats in Franklin, Mr Street will be the first to go.

      This and the following speech were in response to a motion by Tasmanian Greens leader Cassy O’Connor, that “the House take note of the following matter: human rights”, by which she meant, LGBTIQ rights. By the way, Cassy O’Connor has a de facto “two people” marriage with Senator Nick McKim; this is one of the reasons for my previous call for all politicians’ salaries to be means- and assests-tested, just the same as any other government allowance.

      The Mercury had no coverage of this next speech in the House of Assembly, by Braddon Liberal, Joan Rylah, despite it being given the same day, September 21:–

      Mrs RYLAH (Braddon) – Madam Speaker, my position is well known on this plebiscite issue. I believe in equality: equality in the law, equality for property and inheritance, and in civil union. I also believe in diversity in marriage. This is a highly respectful and balanced position, which I believe reflects the communities I represent.
      My view is founded on a deep belief in freedom, particularly freedom to believe and the freedom of speech.
      Ms O’Connor – Not the freedom to marry who you love.
      Mrs RYLAH – That is, to be free to speak respectfully and not be interrupted.
      On this side of the House, freedom means a diversity in views. In the Liberal Party, we believe in a broad church of views as the Premier has outlined many times in the last few days. By comparison, Labor has not only shut down, it has banned its members from Denison and Lyons from speaking. Even worse, Labor threatens those who do not tow their monochrome rainbow line, that it will disendorse or throw them out of the party. That is not freedom, it is not equality and it is not diversity. I condemn Labor for their despicable action on this matter of conscience, and I condemn them for the gag, the bullying and the lack of equality.
      It is not homophobic to support marriage. As Mr Hutchens wrote in the Mercury today, and I agree with him –

      MARRIAGE is not just about two people. It never was and never will be. Marriages make families and families make societies. Voting Yes is not voting for equality, there already is equality. Voting Yes is not voting for love, there already is love. Voting Yes is voting to change the fabric of our society: yes to children not being raised by biological parents; yes to children not having the benefit of a mum and dad; yes to children being taught gender is fluid. This is why my vote is No.

      The current same-sex marriage question demands each of us take our own position. My position is clear and consistent. I will vote no. I am the only Braddon member who will vote no. I will stand resolute because I believe we need to ensure children are no worse off than they are currently, that the human rights of children are reinforced.

      The only way we can protect children and ensure they have the right to know their genetic father and mother is to keep the institution of marriage as it is today. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can do. Look no further than what we know about the damage to adopted children, when they do not know their genetic parents, or the stolen generation who were removed and denied their genetic parents and family, or to the evidence given by donor-conceived children denied the right or the ability to know their father. The damage is lifelong as we well know. A huge black hole accompanied by a yearning to know, a yearning that never leaves them.

      The union of people of same sex is dramatically unequal in this fundamental aspect regarding children. Two people of the same sex are not the child’s parents. At best it is one. That child, under the most progressive laws, has no right until they are 18 years of age to demand knowledge of its other parent from the government. Even then, that child or adult can be legally denied any identifying information. Further, the half siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins of its family, usually the father’s family in Australia, can be denied the right to know or access that child.

      This question is not about the adults. Adults can choose to be as they are. They can form unions. They can have the full legal rights equal to marriage. Nor is it about love. It is absolutely not about equality.
      The facts are the only two things that are the same can be equal. A gay relationship and a male-female marriage are not the same and are not equal for the child.
      Rebacca White [Opposition Leader] – Only because you say so because you pass judgment on them.
      Mrs RYLAH – This is my view. I believe that if you are concerned about children and their right to know their genetic parents, vote no. If you are concerned about what will have to be taught in sex educations in schools, vote no. If you are concerned about the freedom of people of faith to practice their beliefs regarding marriage, vote no.

      The removal of the sign on the Royal Showgrounds last night, which included just five words ‘It’s okay to say no’ is another indication of the division and the fearful bullying, et cetera, that is going on in this debate. It is not sailing on a raft of rainbows, as the other side of this debate tries to portray. It is in fact a barge of bullies forcing those in our society who do not or will not be cowed by this debate to be silent.

    • Michael

      Ind. Janine,
      My last comment should have provided a link to media reports on the misogynist tweet by Tasmanian MP Nic Street, made when still a local councillor. As mentioned above, Nic Street, one of the five MHAs for Franklin in the Tasmanian parliament, was given a “2017 parliamentary speech of the year” award in an article by Mercury reporter David Benuik, on December 29. The Mercury quoted this passage with great delight:–

      As for people’s concerns about [school children] role playing [in same-sex relationships], who do they think plays Mary in a nativity play at an all-boys’ school? I am quite confident that role play will not have any effect on future behaviour. I was once dressed as a sheep at primary school. To this day, I can drive along the Midlands Highway without having to pull my car over and leap the fence in a single bound and munch on grass.

      Nic Street MHA doesn’t understand that a schoolboy playing Mary in a nativity scene, knows he is acting out a role that he will never experience in his life. A nativity scene doesn’t falsely teach this boy that he might be a girl with trapped in a boy’s body. A nativity play is very different from a schoolboy role-playing as a “gay” man, which teaches him to “explore his sexuality”, by engaging in deviant and harmful behaviour, so he can discover if he was “born that way”.

      Nic Street once dressed as a sheep in primary school, but says he doesn’t have the impulse to “leap the fence in a single bound and munch on grass”. It’s normal and healthy for sheep to eat grass, because that’s what sheep are designed to do. Mr Street’s, primary school certainly wasn’t teaching him that he might have been born as a sheep trapped in a human body. What if Mr Street’s teacher lied to him that he might be a sheep trapped in a boy’s body?

      Mr Street should apologise for his sheepophobic comments. People can identify as sheep and eat grass if that’s who they are. Surely there’s no difference between eating grass and eating lettuce, as sheep can eat both. Naturally, Mr Street can see the difference between natural and unnatural eating behaviour, but has blinded himself to the difference between natural and unnatural sexual behaviour.

      Comments by Tasmanian Liberal MHA Guy Barnett (Lyons) that “same-sex marriage” would result in compulsory gay sex education drew the ire of pro-LGBTIQA+ politicians. Greens MHA for Franklin, Dr Rosalie Woodruff, showed that “love is love”, by telling the House of Assembly on 6/8/17:–

      Mr Barnett speaks for a very small hard, nasty, bigoted, tiny minority [and is guilty of] disgraceful, bigoted and hateful behavior.

      Former premier, Lara Giddings (Franklin) told the House, 16/8, that the No campaign has “a bit of a fixation” on sexual behaviour. But really, who has the fixation? Which group calls itself after the sexual desires and behaviour of its members, Christians, or gays?

      It isn’t surprising when MPs push “two people” marriage, because some MPs have already been taken captive by the sexual revolution’s experiments with human reproduction. Former premier, Lara Giddings, is pregnant with her first child at age 44, using a donor egg, so it’s really someone else’s child. And how many spare little ones do they put in the fridge, so a surrogate mother can delude herself into thinking it’s her own child? Her partner has four children by another woman, the youngest of whom is just 2 years old, so he must have been a busy chap. As reported in the Mercury, the two were set up on their first date by Lara Giddings’ office staff; which is a totally inappropiate and unethical use of taxpayer-funded resources.

      • Michael,

        Thanks for all your time in recording this information as it makes me think about my response to the enquiry into freedom of religion.

  9. Michael,
    Thank you once again for those extracts from speeches in Parliament. You have done me and others I am sure a great service by putting in the effort to do that. Concerning the right to refuse to comply with a client’s wishes, that is common in many areas of business. For many medical procedures you have to go to the doctor with the appropriate expertise. Most project builders will only build homes from within their standard range and will not build to a client’s design. You have to go to an architect if you want a design outside their range. More than 40 years ago I experienced this when I designed our house. When I approached a cabinet maker to do the kitchen to my plans he told me emphatically “Mr. S…, I have never built rubbish in my life and I am not starting now.” Why can’t the baker, florist, photographer, celebrant for whom it is morally repugnant to participate in a same sex wedding simply advertise with a statement “No offence, traditional weddings only”. Then it would be clear that the only reason why a same sex couple would prosecute such a person would be to make them do what is outside their advertised range.

    • David.S

      I think your idea is a good one, and genuine Christians would agree with your idea. However, people who identify with LGBTIAQ think businesses which refuse same-sex weddings are discriminating against the person who identifies as LGBTIAQ, rather than they’re discriminating against the ideas in the sexuality and gender theories which have created the idea that “marriage is between any 2 people,” and genuine Christians do not want to participate in these false ideas such as a “same-sex marriage,” nor a “Harlot marriage.” Genuine Christians are going to have become independent from the deregulated civil registered marriage practice, just like registered nurses, midwives and doctors have done in order to protect their moral conscience by not participating in a legal abortion practice and the new legal voluntary assisted dying practice in Victoria. Christians believe it is immoral or wrong to take another person’s life as God commanded, “they shalt not murder.” Also, Genuine Christians believe that “marriage is a union of difference and not sameness as Christ’s bride is his church and not himself.”

      Same-sex partners are demanding that genuine Christians need to give up their faith in the sacrament of “one flesh” marriage in order to serve their idea that “marriage is becoming one for legal government marriage benefits.” The laws regarding marriage and divorce were originally established to deter and prevent the harmful acts of adultery and the practice of breaking a marriage oath in order to protect a “one flesh” marriage and the natural family kinship, and also protect government and society from the massive costs from marriage and family breakdown. However, the amended Family Law Act has legalised the acts of adultery and the practice of breaking a marriage oath, and the amended Marriage Act now encourages and promotes the idea “marriage is between any 2 people” which increases the acts of adultery and the practice of breaking a marriage oath. The genuine Christian church needs to reject an amended Marriage Act and amended Family Law Act by declaring “independence” as these man-made laws aren’t part of the Christian faith in the sacrament of “one flesh” marriage, and can never protect a “one flesh” union (marriage) from the harm of adultery and the practice of breaking a marriage oath.

      • Michael

        Janine and David S.,

        It’s certainly true that no business can serve the entire population. A successful business chooses which market segment it will serve, hiring the right people with the right strategies to help it do so. Business textbooks call this “segmentation and positioning”, and every business does it, even if they don’t use those trendy buzzwords. Also, at a personal level, a shop owner has the same freedom to refuse service to a customer, as the customer does to leave their shop without buying anything.

        A question for Yes voting MPs: do you believe that in a free market, a venue (such as a pub) has the right to position itself as a family-oriented destination? Or do you believe we should have “gay” bars, but not “straight” ones?

        The amended Marriage Act allows a civil marriage between any “two people”, regardless of their sexuality. Therefore, Christian florists and bakers refusing to serve the civil marriage industry won’t be discriminating on the basis of sexuality. Christian business owners can’t be forced to serve the civil marriage industry, just as a vegetarian restaurant can’t be forced to serve meat.

        Talking of food, genuine Christians try to display the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Plants have flowers and fruit for sexual reproduction. A plant can bear fruit only after its female ovum has been fertilised by male pollen; a marriage of difference, not sameness.

        • Michael,

          I agree with your comment. Healthcare professionals aren’t forced to provide healthcare to all patients as an abusive patient with a non-life threatening condition can be removed by security from the hospital. A bakery in the USA was fined $135 000 for refusing to bake a “gay wedding cake,” so this is an example which clearly shows evidence that a deregulated civil registered marriage practice has removed the religious practice of “one flesh” marriage which is based on the criteria of “an exclusive union between a man and woman for life.” Therefore, the Australian Federal Parliament has no argument against “independence” for “one flesh” union (marriage) as the government is no longer regulating (controlling) the harm of adultery and breaking the marriage oath. The “Thugs of Melbourne” have already informed all of Australians that the Victorian government are protecting the public from harm by forcing law and order. The Australian Federal Parliament will receive a good kick in the pants when they wake up to their madness and realise that the amended Marriage Act and amended Family Act are now only regulating the 48.86% of “Yes” voters. Eventually, the “Yes” voters will wake up to find themselves listed on a public marriage registry and they will realise that a public registry doesn’t improve a person’s reputation, just like Paul Keating’s reputation won’t be increased by him voluntarily placing his name on a public registry for foreign interference.

  10. Michael, Janine and Ind.Janine
    I cannot see how any action against a baker etc refusing services to a same sex couple can stand in a fair court, given examples from the practice of big business. Here are two examples where big business openly discriminates against clients with whom it has moral objections. According to The Age on Thursday January 4th, (“Banks slammed for sex shop denial”, p4) a number of Australian banks refuse business with “adult” industry shops because these banks do not want to be identified with what are to them low sexual morals. If banks can refuse their services to clients for their fully legal activity because the banks have moral objections, then the case is surely made whereby wedding industry providers can also refuse on moral grounds even though the activity is legal. The second example is that drug companies refuse to supply lethal drugs to prisons in the US because they are morally opposed to their products being used for capital punishment. And, as Michael pointed out, businesses cannot cover the whole range of activities of a given type, so they have to position themselves within the market, and that is well understood practice. I wonder if it is a mistake to be asking that wedding service providers be expressly permitted to not accept same sex orders when it seems to be standard practice by big business to refuse their services on moral grounds even when the activity is legal. To be asking for exemption implies that wedding service providers do not have the same freedom to conduct their businesses as other businesses do. They should be claiming that they have the right to make moral judgments about the use of their services, just like other businesses do, and that such moral judgments are not discrimination against a person because of who they are but against partaking in a repugnant activity with them.

    Ind.Janine, you must be careful with your 48.86% support for same sex marriage. The problem is that by that type of calculation, barely 30% of the population expressed opposition to same sex marriage. Unfortunately the reality is that overwhelmingly the Australian population has said yes to same sex marriage. If a government were elected with that result it would be called a landslide victory. It is a testament to the inability of Australian voters to think for themselves and their vulnerability to determined opinion makers. Even when it is dressing up as “love” what used to be universally disgusting.

    • David S,

      The ABS statistics on the “same -sex marriage” survey are very clear that only 48.86% of all eligible voters indicated “Yes,” whilst 51.14% of “No voters and other people who were unsure and or decided not to vote “Yes.” This means that basically in any room of 2 eligible voters there was one “yes” voter and “one no voter” or one person who didn’t vote. The approximately 30% of “No” voters didn’t stop the amended Marriage Act, but it does mean that this new amended law is now only regulating (controlling) the 48.48% of “yes” voters. The government would claim this to be a landslide victory like same-sex partners, but the reality is that slightly more than half the population of eligible voters decided either to vote “no” or didn’t vote at all, and now the new amended Marriage Act can’t claim to regulate them. Australians were told by MSM that 70%-80% of Australians would clearly vote “Yes,” so the 48.86% of all eligible voters who indicated “Yes” is only a cup half filled and is going to the bottom and especially if the majority in this group doesn’t believe in the practice of a civil registered marriage. The ABS “same-sex marriage” survey removed the 20% of eligible non-voters from being included in the published ABS results in order to increase the % of “Yes” voters as 61% sounds a lot better than 48.86% of all eligible voters. I do agree that Australians voters should think for themselves, but the Australian Federal Parliament failed to educate the public about the purpose of laws and regulations are to detect, prevent and criminalise harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm. The ABS “same-sex marriage” survey clearly showed there was barely 30% of “No” voters, so there are only a minority group of people who strongly believe marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. However, the 20% of non-voters are real people who had a choice to vote “Yes” if they believed in legalisation of “same-sex marriage,” but they chose not to send in their vote. The Australian Federal Parliament doesn’t usually create laws on a popularity vote. If the majority of Australians voted to legalise the death penalty for murder this still wouldn’t make it a moral practice. Now that the amended Marriage Act doesn’t protect religious freedom it will be interesting to see how people respond to the legalised same-sex marriage. I don’t pretend that about 40% of voters indicated “No” to a legalised “same-sex marriage” as this isn’t the real truth when one looks at the ABS statistics of all eligible voters. Genuine Christians need to speak the truth, even when this isn’t easy for us. Genuine Christians need to speak the truth about “one flesh” marriage to the non-voters in the “same-sex marriage survey”, despite their non-vote wasn’t counted by the ABS.

      • Michael

        Ind. Janine,
        Thanks for your comments, including “Australians were told by MSM that 70%-80% of Australians would clearly vote Yes…”. The media certainly plays a huge part in the success of the LGBTIQA movement, so it’s hardly surprising that the abbreviation for “mainstream media”, MSM, is also short for “men who have sex with men”.

        To go off on a tangent about capital punishment for murder, God established human government after the Flood (Genesis 9:5-6), so that the antediluvian anarchy of the earth being filled with violence and murder, would not recur until the last days. Human government must recognise and reinforce the sanctity of human life. In the law of Moses, if an animal which killed a human had to be put to death (Exodus 21:28), then a fortiori, so should a human who kills another human. Capital punishment can be justified where a murder is wilful, culpable, and where there are two or more eyewitnesses.

        Even if judges and courts have the power to impose the death penalty, they don’t have the obligation to do so, as they can of course have mercy. God had mercy on David, forgiving him when he repented, even though he committed two crimes that carried the death penalty; adultery with Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband Uriah. And of course Jesus had mercy on the woman caught in adultery, even though adultery carried the death penalty in the law of Moses.

        The politicians who oppose capital punishment for murder, are the same ones who demand capital punishment for babies who commit the crime of being unwanted. In 2013, I asked then-Premier of Tasmania Lara Giddings whether Martin Bryant, who murdered 35 people, including children, in the Port Arthur massacre, should have faced the death penalty. “Oh no,” she said, “capital punishment is always wrong.” So why have it for unwanted babies? Because, according to her, babies aren’t people. In Tasmania, it is illegal to kill snakes, so we have a crazy situation, where snakes have more legal rights than human babies.

        It’s sometimes said that the death penalty doesn’t (or didn’t) act as a deterrent. If the death penalty didn’t deter murderers, then life imprisonment certainly isn’t going to, especially if a convicted murderer can be paid $40 a day for good behaviour.

        It seems that the MPs pushing “same-sex marriage” are the most likely to oppose capital punishment. A legal “same-sex marriage” obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ; for the one-flesh marriage of a man and a woman symbolises the last and ultimate marriage of Christ and his Church, which is a union of difference, not sameness. The abolition of the death penalty likewise obscures the Gospel, by representing the judical, though unjust, execution of Jesus Christ, as a futile relic of a bygone age.

    • Michael

      David S.,
      Thanks for your comment that businesses can and do refuse service to customers whose activities they don’t agree with. Most places of business ban smoking on the premises, and sometimes outside the premises within a certain distance, even though smoking is a legal activity. Are shops and hotels afraid of breathing equality activists demanding an end to discrimination on the basis of respiratory orientation? Surely Yes MPs will be wanting to stamp out tobaccophobia?

      Even before the amended marriage act was passed, the Australian government allowed churches the freedom to refuse to marry divorced persons, even though remarriage after divorce is a legal right under the civil marriage law.

      As for the postal survey statistics, the ABS Marriage Survey website doesn’t show the Yes and No votes as a proportion of the number of eligible voters…! (The webpage has moved, but the link redirects to the new location.) Also, the ABS has inflated the “participation rate”, by counting informal or blank votes as “participation”.

      When the survey was held, Australia had 16,006,180 eligible voters. The ABS received 7,817,247 Yes votes — this is only 48.84% of voters, which is not a majority. There were 4,873,987 No votes, which equals 30.45% of eligible voters. Another 3,278,260 people, or 20.48% of eligible voters, didn’t return their survey form, so didn’t show any support for changing the law. An additional 36,686 voters returned a blank or informal vote, taking the total of “Not interested” to 3,314,946. The total of No votes, plus “Not interested”, is 4,873,987 + 3,314,946 = 8,188,933, or 51.16% of Australian voters.

      Let’s have a closer look at Tasmania, which had 379,428 eligible voters. The ABS received 191,948 Tasmanian Yes votes, which is 50.59% of eligible Tasmanian voters. There were 109,655 No votes, or 28.9%. There were 77,825 Tasmanians who didn’t return their survey form, which is 20.51% (includes 805 blank/informal responses). The proportion of Tasmanian No votes, plus “Not interested, is 109,655 + 77,825 = 187,480, or 49.41% of Tasmanian voters. After decades of “gay activism” and positive media coverage in Rodney Croome’s home state of Tasmania, the Yes vote could manage only the barest possible majority: 0.59% of eligible voters. Hardly a landslide, especially when Tasmania is home to just 2.37% of Australia’s eligible voters.

      I went into a gay bar, and ordered $100 worth of drinks, could I hand over $61 and say that’s all I owe, because I surveyed my wallet, and came out with an overwhelming majority of the money? If the barman counted this $61, and found it was really only $48 of all eligible dollars on my bill, I could lisp, “It’s sweet, babe, because love is love!”

      • Michael,

        The amended Marriage Act is now treated like an election of popularity at the time, rather than a marriage law and a family law which was suppose to regulate (control) harmful sexual behaviours and practices in society, so that marriage/family relationships would be healthy and last for a lifetime. The Marriage Act and Family Law Act are suppose to protect marriage/family including husband, wife and any children from the harm of marriage and family breakdown caused by the harmful acts of adultery and sodomy, and the harmful practices of breaking a marriage oath and legally separating children from their biological parents, as this leads to desertion, abuse, divorce, violence and even murder. All these negative behaviours of marriage and family breakdown are a massive cost for all levels of government, society and children suffer the most from the separation of their biological parents.

        Today, The Guardian reported marriage as a “consensual relationship – “2 consenting adults.” However, the legal prostitute practice is based on a “consensual relationship – “2 consenting adults,” but a sex worker and their client’s sexual relationship would never be classed by Australians as a genuine marriage relationship, even though the amended Marriage Act makes their “love” a legitimate “Harlot marriage” as they meet the criteria of “nay 2 people who can marry.” The nursing regulations prohibit a “consensual relationship between 2 consenting adults such as a registered nurse and their patient, and the Catholic Church has never blessed an “adulterous marriage” for divorced persons, despite their legal right to a civil registered marriage. The Australian Federal Parliament are completely delusional to believe that 100% of all eligible voters in Australia now support this new idea of marriage is a consensual relationship between any 2 people which is based on sexuality and gender theories.

        The idea that people have a sexual orientation is like the idea of walking orientation. I have witnessed some people walking on their hands, but this doesn’t mean that people’s hands were biologically designed for walking on, and people would definitely have a different view of the world from upside down. I would seriously question any school program which attempted to teach all children about walking on their hands in order to be inclusive of the children who love looking at the world from upside down, and they wanted everyone to treat this experience as natural, normal and healthy. Parents would strongly reject the idea that teachers should educate all students to believe hands are the same as feet, and people should get over their fear of a “headache” or “pain in the neck.” Somehow the “headache” and “pain in the neck” would just magically disappear if more people would see the world from upside down. The government could create laws and regulations which would encourage and promote people to walk on their hands, but the majority of people would never support the idea that people should be forced to participate in the new idea of walking on their hands, and people would get sick and tired of being labelled “headache” and “pain in the neck” for being a bigot to the new walking orientation.

        • Michael

          Ind. Janine,
          I agree with your comments, and thanks for posting this, as people need to see the truth. The like-o-meter just below the article shows over 500 Facebook likes for this page, so hopefully the truth is getting out there. It was interesting to search Hansard for particular phrases. During the parliamentary debate on the amended Marriage Act, from 27/11/17 to 9/12/17, “Australian Marriage Forum” was mentioned just twice, and “David van Gend” was mentioned by name only once. Compare this with “Australian Marriage Equality” being mentioned 13 times, six in the Senate and five in the House, while “Rodney Croome” was mentioned by name 23 times, seven in the Senate, and 16 in the House.

          The opinion in the Guardian that “marriage is an adult consensual relationship” found many supporters in federal parliament, as quoted above. Another example is Senator Carol Brown (Tas) saying 27/11, “Marriage is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person”. But a man can make a “declaration of love and commitment to a special person” by mowing his mum’s lawn, so shouldn’t this be recognised as a legal marriage?

          The “harlot marriage” between sex worker and client fulfills all requirements for civil marriage as an “adult consensual relationship” between “two people”. “Harlot marriage” meets the requirement for legal divorce by “irretrievable breakdown”, for when the money for sex is paid, the love and commitment break down irretrievably. Prostitutes don’t need to pay income tax or collect GST for the government on the fees paid by their clients, because financial transfers between spouses aren’t taxable. And progressive churches will move to eliminate the church’s traditionally negative portrayal of prostitution with a new translation of the Bible, called the Harlot International Version, or HIV.

          The Yes campaign strongly believes that people can’t help who they fall in love with, nor the type of love they experience, nor the length of time this love will last. If marriage need not be life-long, it can be as short as the consenting adults choose. Thus, we can overcome any remaining social stigma with “sleeping around” by granting “marriage equality” to the “two people” in a one-night stand. The idea that “marriage is an adult consensual relationship” means that marriage becomes a string of one-night stands with the same person, so a legal marriage need be only one night long.

          Even though Australia’s federal parliament has treated the postal survey result as if it were an election result, some MPs are carrying on as though the result is final, and can never be changed. Senator George Brandis (28/11) called the passage of the amended marriage act a “signature achievement of the Turnbull government”, and a “final act of acceptance”, which leaves an “imperishable legacy”.

          Should we have a survey on whether to grant breathing equality to Australians of diverse respiratory orientation, formerly stigmatised as “smokers”? Or what about drinking equality for Australia’s merry community? Now that 48% of eligible voters can form a majority, we must have a survey to gauge community support for maths equality, so our fellow Australians who strongly believe that 2 + 2 = 5 can achieve civil mathematics registration. Surely “number is number”? Clearly, this will help vulnerable young people coming to terms with their numerical orientation, and stamp out the quintophobia of mathematical conservatives who wrongly believe that 2 + 2 must equal 4, and who teach such bigotry to their children.

          Thanks for your comments on “walking orientation” vs “sexual orientation”, as this is a great way of showing people the falsehood of the sexuality and gender theories now enshrined in Australian law. Some MPs showed their support for the Yes campaign by wearing rainbow badges, ties, scarves etc. Surely these MPs should have shown their support for Australians of diverse walking orientation, by walking to the dispatch box on their hands.

          The LGBTIQA+ dictators, and the medical professionals aligned with them, call sexual intercourse “vaginal sex”, so they can pretend it’s the same as oral and anal sex. Therefore, normal upright walking will now be called “feetwalking”, because it’s really no different from handwalking. The US government’s Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) says, “The only way to avoid STDs is to not have vaginal, anal, or oral sex“. In like manner, Safe Schools will introduce its Wonderful Walkers curriculum by saying, “The only way to avoid falling over is not to walk on your hands or feet.”

          All the headaches and pains in the neck associated with handwalking are simply due to society’s lingering prejudices against people of diverse pedestrianality. Depression and possible suicide of handwalkers can be minimised by duplicating all signs and posters in a way that ignorant feetwalkers would call “upside down”. Libraries can embrace diversity and demonstrate their inclusiveness by shelving all books “upside down”, with the zeroes at a feetwalker’s bottom right, continuing up to the 900s at feetwalker’s top left. Lastly, some cities have had rainbow traffic lights to celebrate sexual orientation. Pedestrian traffic lights would give a perfect opportunity to celebrate walking orientation. Why have a little green man standing upright, walking on his feet? How discriminatory! He should be replaced with a rainbow-coloured person standing upside down, walking on her/his hands.

          If Safe Schools introduced a Fabulous Finance program, it would go something like this: My $50 is gender-fluid, because it has a man (David Unaipon) on the front and a woman (Edith Cowan) on the back. David and Edith are such a loving and committed couple who go everywhere together. However, my $50 note is extremely depressed, and is actually contemplating suicide, because people don’t accept him/her for who he/she is. David identifies as Nellie, and Edith as John, because they were born with the financial orientation of being Dame Nellie Melba and Sir John Monash from a $100 note. Marriage is for love, not money. My $50 has every right to be treated equally as a $100 note, because my $50 is really a $100 note trapped in a $50 note’s body.

          • Michael,

            Your comment brought tears to my eyes with laughter. I do hope Australians wake-up to the “sexual orientation” vs “walking orientation” as this shows very different ways of viewing the world, and nobody expects babies to have sex nor walk. The majority of parents don’t expect their child will grow up to walk on their hands or not to walk at all, and neither do they expect that their child will grow up to marry their same-sex friend in order “to become one for legal government marriage benefits” or a “civil registered marriage,” nor do they expect their child would grow up to have a sexless marriage or place their genitals in a person’s anus/mouth and believe they’re having sexual intercourse. Also, parents don’t expect their child to grow up to treat a poor women’s womb and surrogate children as commodities which can be bought and sold. The Australian Education system has failed at teaching students law and order as well as health and human development because the teachers can’t discriminate between words because of the PC madness.

            I do believe that Australians should pay very close attention to your comment on money because the news reports have all been warning for some time that Australian households are living in a bubble of a fantasy world, which will soon pop as people have taken on too much debt. These people believe in the idea that 2+2 = 5 because it gives them the lifestyle that they want right now, and they hate the people who warn them that they’re spending too much money and they could lose everything. All this doom and gloom is making them suicidal, and they need the government support to create laws which prohibit these warning signs as they just view it as “hate speech.” They can’t believe that people over the centuries have calculated 2+2=4, and these people have gone without things instead of believing they could have more. Now that the majority of Australians believe in “marriage equality,” this means they can demand “number equality” as 4 now equals 5, so when the housing bubble bursts and people find that they can’t afford the interest rate, they can then use your argument with their bank manager in order for them to imagine that the customer’s debt is $0, since “love is love.” The Australian Federal Parliament will be forced to believe in the idea that 2+2=5 because the 48.86% of “YES” voters are a clear majority of all eligible voters. I am sure that the government will support the “YES” voters if they were at risk of losing their homes because they would pressure the banks to support the minority group of people – 48.86% (majority is the same as minority as “love is love”).

            The Federal Parliament amended the Marriage Law for 46 000 same-sex partners and the couple of thousand people who identify as transgender, and some of these people had voted against the change of law, and there were nearly 5 million people who voted “no” to this amendment, let alone the $3 million + people who didn’t vote or weren’t interested in voting “Yes.” How long will this deregulated civil marriage practice last with these numbers – 51.14% non-supporters to the change of law? Maybe Australians should take a good look at the deregulation of the Aged care facilities and nursing homes as the government removed the criteria of a registered nurse and included poorly qualified personal care attendants. The standard of care has significantly decreased over time as the registered nurses left the Aged care facilities and nursing homes. There are now people who are so scared of going into an aged care facility/nursing home because of inappropriate care and treatment, abuse and the risk of an unplanned death. The progressive Christian church will need to create some Biblical verses to encourage and promote the acts of adultery, sodomy, prostitution and sexual immorality as well as the practice of breaking a marriage oath which leads to the legal separation of children from their biological parent/s in order to prevent all the genuine Christians from declaring “independence” from the amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law.

          • Michael

            Ind. Janine,
            Thanks for your comments — I would have replied sooner, but for daylight saving. Putting clocks forward one hour early for daylight saving means 11pm is (falsely) called midnight, which means Friday becomes Saturday. Therefore, “month saving” involves turning calendars over one month early, so January can be called February.

            I did enjoy your comment that mortgagees and bank customers can claim their debt is $0, since “love is love”; because “love” really does mean zero in tennis.

            I agree that a deregulated civil marriage practise cannot last, as it isn’t based on the truth. It was interesting to see a small item in today’s Mercury, that Barbados has just become the first country to reverse “marriage equality”.

            Federal parliament has changed the Marriage Act to allow any “two people” to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, the various state parliaments will be able to change their respective police acts, so that anyone with the sartorial orientation of wearing a police uniform, can be given the status, income and authority of a police officer. Clearly, this allow more people to join the police, and strengthen the institution of policing.

            The very idea of being born with a “sexual orientation” is as riduculous as the idea of being born with a “digestive orientation”. If it doesn’t matter whether you have sex with your vagina, anus or mouth, then it doesn’t matter if you eat with your mouth, nose, or ears. If no-one is born with a digestive orientation to eat faeces, then no-one is born with a sexual orientation to have pretend sex with the place faeces comes from.

            No-one would believe a mother who said she was born with a diverse lactational orientation, and could feed her baby just as well with her elbows as she could with her breasts. Every mother positions her baby so it can suckle with its mouth. She doesn’t think, hmm, perhaps my baby has a different feeding orientation, and wants to suckle with its nose or with its ear. Saying that all sexual activities are equally healthy, is like saying that a baby will receive the same nutrition whether suckles from its mother’s nipples or from its father’s.

            If sodomy is just as normal and healthy as sexual intercourse, then smoking is just as normal and healthy as breathing clean air. Safe Schools and similar programs bring “sex toys” into the class room, and present these as a “safer option” because they don’t cause pregnancy. Therefore, the Lucky Lungs program will bring “smoking toys” like e-cigarettes, into the classroom, and present these as the “safer option” because they don’t cause lung cancer. Safe Schools has also taught children how to masturbate with “sex toys” improvised from household objects and appliances. Likewise, Lucky Lungs will teach children how to acheive smoking pleasure with a home-made bong. Clearly, we must encourage children of diverse respiratory orientation to come out with pride, stamp out tobaccophobia, and finally achieve breathing equality.

            ➡ If your son lights up a fag (cigarette..!), will you celebrate his respiratory orientation?
            ➡ If your daughter comes out as merry, will you encourage her to get drunk?

            The Australian education system has failed to teach people the meanings of words, logic, reason, critical thinking, and even basic common sense. For example, two crazy statements were repeated ad nauseum by the Yes campaign, as a substitute for logic and reason. One example, from Senator Lisa Singh (Tas), 27/11:–

            Everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love.

            This doesn’t even make sense, from a common sense point of view. A man might love a woman with all his heart, but if she doesn’t return his love, he certainly doesn’t have the right to marry her. A man has the privilege of proposing, but the woman has the right to reject his proposal. A woman has the privilege of receiving the man’s proposal, but the man has the right not to propose in the first place. Perhaps Senator Singh has never received a proposal of marriage. No-one “deserves the right to marry the person they love”. Love is an ongoing sacrfice. True love makes a person say, “I don’t deserve you; I don’t deserve your love.”

            Another example, from Adam Bandt (MP for Melbourne), 7/12:–

            Love makes a family

            What nonsense. A man and a woman can love each other all they want, but if they never do what it takes, their love will never make a family. Due to circumstances beyond their control, my grandparents once experienced an unwanted five-year separation. It may come as a surprise to Mr Bandt, but their love for each other didn’t make any additions to their family during this time. My grandparents’ love grew during their separation, but their family didn’t grow again until their separation was over.

            PS, Hopefully AMF has made a submission to the Religous Freedom enquiry, as the closing date is the 14th.

          • Michael,

            The Australian and Victorian Human Rights Commission has no definition of male and female, but “gender identity” is protected in law. “Gender identity” is suppose to harm no one because people self-identify their gender. However, “gender identity” directly discriminates against all people who are unconscious, incoherent, new-born, demented and or non-verbal as they don’t have the ability to verbalise their gender. Therefore, these people are denied their most basic human right to be identified with their biological sex of either male or female. These are the binary genders that can be measured and tested world wide unlike the subjective “gender identity” which people can change their mind. Unfortunately, the dehumanisation of a person started with the unwanted neonate as they’re treated as bodily waste products. This has lead to the terminally ill patient being treated as better off dead, so the future of the unconscious patient will no doubt be treated as a blob if the healthcare professionals no longer advocate for patient’s biological sex.

  11. Michael,

    The Federal Parliament of Australia deregulated the civil registered marriage practice in December 2017, and the MSM only then reported the Barnaby Joyce consensual adulterous relationship with his new partner (concubine/slave) and they’ve procreated new-life (? a boy). The MSM has exposed Bill Shorten’s adulterous relationship to his current wife which had resulted in a love child whilst they were both married to other people. It is obvious now that the majority of politicians were wanting the rules of the civil registered marriage practice to be changed in order to include their own adulterous relationships (conflict of interest). There is now debate in parliament about prohibiting adult sexual relationships between politicians and staff employees, but some politicians believe this is too difficult to regulate. However, the nursing regulations prohibit any sexual relationships between registered nurses and their patients. In other words, these politicians don’t want to detect nor prevent adult consenting adulterous relationships such as the Barnaby Joyce’s affair which has caused significant harm to his wife and 4 daughters. Also, there are many Australians who don’t trust politicians because they’re hypocrites because a person who cheats on their wife and children is just as likely to cheat on the taxpayer and on their party.

    Why didn’t the MSM want to report the consenting adulterous relationship between Barnaby Joyce and his new lover? It is obvious that the MSM didn’t want to highlight the true meaning of marriage as an exclusive sexual relationship between a husband and a wife for life. The sexual activity between 2 men or 2 women is 100% infertile, so same-sex marriage isn’t the same as the true meaning of marriage because sexual intercourse between a husband and wife can naturally procreate, nurture and raise new-life with both a male and female role model. The Barnaby Joyce’s affair highlighted the harmful act of adultery which causes the harmful practice of breaking a marriage oath. Natalie Joyce has reported the devastation, hurt and suffering both she and their 4 children have experienced from Barnaby’s affair, but she hasn’t claimed her marriage is for any government marriage benefits such as status, nor access to a no fault divorce, nor any benefits of immigration, inheritance, taxation or welfare.

    The Australian federal parliament promised no slippery slope, but the MSM keep reporting on new ideas about a broader system of partnership recognition. On the 7th February 2018, The Guardian reported, “Marriage? No thanks. Here’s a better idea,” as Peter Tatchell claimed, “In place of a one-size-fits-all legal model, a civil commitment pact would give rights to any two people who share a close bond…marriage law privileges romantic sexual love over often equally enduring, loyal friendship. Some lifelong friends share levels of devotion and commitment similar to those of many spouses…Strong, supportive relationships – whether between lovers or friends – are good for the people involved and have a wider social benefit. As well as enhancing an individual’s happiness and wellbeing, they strengthen a person’s ability to cope with adversity and diminish their dependence on the state. It is therefore in society’s interest to encourage and reward relationships with legal validation and protection. My proposed civil commitment pact would allow people to nominate any “significant other” in their life as their next of kin, inheritance beneficiary and their nominee for host of other mutual rights. This could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer or best friend…My “pick and mix” system gives recognition and rights to both love partners and non-sexual close friends. Offering a modern, flexible alternative to marriage and civil partnerships…”

    The lie about the deregulated civil registered marriage practice has now been exposed by the Barnaby affair as there is no civil law prohibiting the consensual adulterous relationships between any 2 adults. The media can advertise the Ashley Madison “Have an affair,” but they refused to advertise the AMF – marriage is an exclusive union between a man and woman for life. However, the media want to pretend that the civil registered marriage still remains based on the traditional understanding of a Christian marriage as an exclusive sexual relationship between a husband and wife for life in the case of the Barnaby affair. Barnaby Joyce hasn’t been given the same public support as people who identify as LGBTIAQ who are allowed the right to change their mind about who they will love and marry. The no fault divorce law won’t be punishing the Barnaby’s affair which has caused the breakage of his marriage oath to his wife, but the media is publicly punishing the Barnaby’s affair because the public doesn’t want him to be rewarded for cheating on his wife and family nor deceiving the public.

    Unfortunately, laws in Australia are confusing a reward with punishment such as the reward of $40 for good behaviour for criminals in detention. The law is suppose to detect, prevent and criminalise harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm. Australians no longer understand if criminals are being rewarded or punished for the crimes they have committed. Australian laws regarding immigration and foreign interference aren’t created in order to increase the reputation of foreigners, but these laws are established because of the harm these behavioural practices can cause to the public and society. The historical records of the Bible have shown the reason why laws were established in order to protect a “one flesh” union (marriage) from the harm of adultery which causes the breaking of a marriage oath. The Christian churches have educated people about the good purpose of a “one flesh” union between husband and wife in order to support and protect each other and any children. Also, the Christian churches have warned about coveting another man’s wife which would lead to adultery. These harmful act of coveting/adultery would often cause separation, divorce as well as family violence, abuse, suffering and even murder. A civil registered marriage practice is attempting to reward people for a public wedding ceremony by allowing them a civil right to purchase a legal state marriage certificate in order to receive government marriage benefits. However, the harmful practice of marriage and family breakdown is a massive cost to all levels of government, society and children suffer the most from separated biological parents. Australian society has become more secular in recent years which means people are demanding values to be written into laws which confuses the purpose of laws. Western societies are in an “ideas revolution,” and people are confused about which ideas we should value.

    Australians have witnessed the deregulation of nursing homes, dairy industry, electricity in Victoria etc. Unfortunately, deregulation means that Australians are no longer protected from harmful behaviours and practices. The act of sodomy was decriminalised for harm minimisation reasons, and adult people are legally allowed to commit the act of sodomy as long as the other person legally consents to this harmful behaviour and they have accepted the consequences. The legal practice of abortion and voluntary assisted dying are allowed by legal consent of the pregnant mother or patient/client. Marijuana was criminalised, then later decriminalised for the legalisation for medical purposes in Victoria. The harmful act of adultery and practice of breaking a marriage oath was criminalised in 1857, then decriminalised in 1975 and in December 2017 this harmful behavioural practice became legalised by the idea that marriage is between any 2 people.

    The Australian Federal government can create laws in order to regulate (control) any harmful behaviour and practice in order to protect the public and society from harm including adultery, breakage of a marriage oath, sodomy, fornication, prostitution etc. However, the Australian Federal parliament has removed the criteria of an exclusive union between a husband and wife for life or a “one flesh” union (marriage) in the amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce laws, so these laws are no longer part of the Christian faith in the sacrament of marriage and religious divorce. A person/professional must register if they want a legal right to participate in the behavioural practice of legal foreign interest, legal abortion, legal voluntary assisted dying and legal prostitution because the government authorities want to regulate the harm to the public and society. Since the amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce are now established for the harmful behavioural practice of adultery which leads to breaking a marriage oath, then only the people who want to participate in an adult consenting adulterous relationship needs to have their name and details recorded on a public marriage registry, and this includes priests/church ministers who want to participate in marrying people who are in an adulterous relationship or a sexually immoral relationship. A “one flesh” union (marriage) between husband and wife are now free like Adam and Eve to have independence from the amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce laws. Australians can’t pretend that the same behavioural practice exists for criminalised and legalised behaviours and practices. Registered nurses and doctors don’t pretend that exactly the same behavioural practice exists for criminalisation, decriminalisation and legalisation of abortion and assisted dying practice. The deregulated civil registered marriage practice will decrease the rate of civil registered marriage and increase the rate of civil divorce as an adulterous relationship between any 2 people is now a legalised behavioural practice, and this meets the criteria of a civil registered marriage and no-fault divorce law in Australian society.

    It will be interesting to see how the Australian Federal Parliament will handle the Barnaby affair because the LGBTIAQ party dictators have already pointed their finger at Barnaby blaming him for his stance against same-sex marriage and HPV (Vaccination) – promiscuous relationships. King David was caught in an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and his account showed evidence of the harm it causes to breaking down marriage/family relationships. It is often people who have “been there and done that,” who truely understand the level of guilt for bad behaviour. Barnaby still believes marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship between a husband and wife for life, despite his consensual adulterous relationship with an ex-staff member. The LGBTIAQ party dictators haven’t told the truth about adultery which can only happen between a man and a woman, and regulating the harm of adultery/breaking a marriage oath are the real purpose of the civil registered marriage practice.

Leave a comment