Let the People Speak – Australians want to vote on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

According to this week’s Essential Report, more than ever before, Australians want to have their say on what marriage really means to us.

“61% thought that same sex marriage should be decided by a national vote, up 2% since August 2016, and 27% thought it should be decided by parliament, up 2% since August 2016.

“62% of those who supported same sex marriage would prefer a national vote, as would 68% percent of those who did not support same sex marriage.

“Men were more likely to prefer a vote in parliament (32% prefer) than women (21%).”

So, why are SSM activists so opposed to letting Aussies speak?

Why do they bully anyone who has the courage to admit that they support the current legal definition of marriage? People like Margaret Court, who faced a “trial by left-wing media”. By the way, you’re invited to Sign the Petition to support Margaret Court’s right to Freedom of Speech.

Claims that a vote would increase suicide rates amongst the gay community simply don’t add up, with data released by the National Suicide Research Foundation showing a decrease in suicides during the lead-up to the Irish Referendum.


In truth, the longer SSM Activists keep Australians waiting, the more time we have to witness the fallout in countries where SSM is legalised.

One such revelation has come out of New Zealand just recently where any organisation supporting the traditional family unit is no longer welcome. According to Marriage Alliance: “The New Zealand Charities Board has recently decided that they will strip Family First NZ of its charity status – because they advocate for the traditional family.”

Family First issued this statement: “Coincidentally, this [decision] followed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in New Zealand, which Family First had opposed, sponsoring a petition against the redefinition of marriage in 2012. The group fought deregistration and the Wellington High Court in 2015 told the board to reconsider...

“Apparently it’s OK to lobby for new ideas about human beings and the way they relate to one another, but not for the tried and tested ones on which societies currently depend.”

And in Canada, where gender has been removed from marriage, Ontario has passed a law allowing the Government to seize children from parents who oppose gender transition.

"I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently," says Michael Coteau, Minister of Child and Family Services.

What’s perhaps even more frightening is that this is already happening in Australia where 300 schools in Victoria have agreed to facilitate gender changes for children as young as 6 without their parents’ knowledge or consent!

We know that the vast majority of gender-confused children will accept their birth gender by their late teens. So if these children have undergone hormone altering therapies and even surgery as minors and then go on to change their minds, or suffer from debilitating long-term effects from these treatments, whom do they sue? The school that facilitated the change, the Government that endorsed it, or the parents who are ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of their children, even though their parental rights have been stripped away in pursuit of a genderless society?

Australians are waking up to the dangerous SSM agenda and all that comes with the SSM “package deal”. The longer they deny us our promised plebiscite, the more we will uncover about the real consequences of redefining marriage. Sign ACL’s petition today and let the pollies know you want the plebiscite!

Like what we're doing here? Please make a secure online donation:

Please note, you don't need to have a PayPal account in order to use PayPal payment gateway to make a donation via credit card.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

24 Responses

  1. I still can’t for the life of me work out why I’m not allowed to comment on your Facebook page.

  2. ‘What’s perhaps even more frightening is that this is already happening in Australia where 300 schools in Victoria have agreed to facilitate gender changes for children as young as 6 without their parents’ knowledge or consent!”

    AJ can you explain why this story has only been carried in a relatively obscure overseas publication?

    Could I enquire as to whether you have checked its veracity and reliability? Have you independently verified what would certainly be a matter of concern to many people?

    I would respectfully suggest on the basis of what I know about parental consent to medical treatment in Australia that the Daily Wire article is, whether intentionally or not, very misleading and not helpful to discussion here in Australia.

    • AJ

      Margaret, we have been asking ourselves this question for a long time: ‘Why does the media stay silent on issues of vital importance such as this?’ A link to the relevant ‘Safe Schools’ document is available in the article on Daily Wire.

      • AJ with respect some sections of the media most certainly don’t stay silent on issues of this kind.So why has this story not been covered by, for example. The Australian or the Daily Telegraph?

        I ask again: has AMF independently verified the article in the Daily Wire?

        The only source I have been able to trace (a blog) mentions the signing up process but explicitly says that this is not about facilitating actual transition (drugs/surgery) without parental consent.

        This is simply not possible under Australian law, as I am sure Dr Van Gend as a medical practitioner can confirm.

        However one can hardly expect the Daily Wire to be familiar with Australian law.

        • Margaret,

          This year my son had a couple of MRI’s and I paid for these procedures and our family medicare card number was taken with my son’s name and number. What I was shocked to find out was medicare wanted my son’s bank details to refund a percentage of the Bill which he never paid but I had paid on his behalf. However, I learnt that my son and one daughter can legally consent to their own treatment when they had turn 14 years old without my husband and I even been aware about a procedure and this can include abortion, hormone therapy, surgical procedures etc.

          • Janine i know this is the case for 14 year olds.There are meant to be conditions attached re perceived competence but I do not know how strictly they are applied.However the Daily Wire article speaks of children as young as six and that was the point i was querying.

        • Margaret,

          The government authorities are given authority by the state to act in the best interest of a child so they can legally consent to procedures on their behalf of a child in an emergency situations or they can get a court order which can override any legal parents authority even for a 6 year old child.

          • Janine I accept that this is possible, though obtaining a court order that overrides parental authority is very difficult indeed
            I still believe the Daily Wire article does not accurately portray the situation here in Australia, which is understandable given that it does not appear to be based on a reliable Australian source.

        • Margaret,
          It isn’t that hard in Australia to get a Court order which overrides parental consent for a child, especially if government authorities believe they’re acting in the best interest of the child.

          • Janine even on the basis of child’s best interests the evidence in relation to life saving medical treatment suggests it IS very difficult to get a court order overriding the parents’ wishes.
            This came up in relation to the case in WA last year and i read a fair bit of background.

            I’d be interested to hear of cases where court orders have been granted in Australia as I know your background is in health and I am only basing my belief on what i have read.

  3. I am afraid that there may be a bit of self delusion about increasing support for a plebiscite. This AMF post says that voter support for a plebiscite is increasing and is now at 61% compared with 27% who think that it should be decided by parliament, both figures up 2% compared with a year ago. That these figures are encouraging is not in agreement with a Griffith University survey reported in The Australian on June 16th last year. This is an extract from the report in The Australian:

    “The study of 1222 people, taken early last month, found 70 per cent believed the people should vote on the issue of same sex-marriage, only 19 per cent believing it should be decided by parliament.
    And, despite the opposition’s vow to dump the plebiscite if it wins the election, the survey showed 72.7 per cent of Labor supporters backed a people’s vote on same-sex marriage, with 23.4 per cent favouring Bill Shorten’s position to have a vote by MPs.”

    On the basis of that Griffith University survey, support for a plebiscite has dropped by 9% while support for a parliamentary vote has increased by 8%. Unfortunately the figures do not indicate to me that Australians more than ever want to have their say on what marriage means.

    • AJ

      Two different surveys, different methods and sample sizes, both showing majority support for a Plebiscite.

    • Janine i know this is the case for 14 year olds.There are meant to be conditions attached re perceived competence but I do not know how strictly they are applied.However the Daily Wire article speaks of children as young as six and that was the point i was querying.

  4. AJ I am still a little puzzled by the current campaign for a plebiscite in the near future.
    I note your argument that
    “The longer they deny us our promised plebiscite, the more we will uncover about the real consequences of redefining marriage.”

    Wouldn’t that make it desirable to postpone the plebiscite for as long as possible?

    On the other hand like David S I am not as confident as you are about the interpretation of the figures. i would tend to see them as proving that a growing number of Australians simply want the question settled one way or another.

    • Ash

      Margaret, what is the rationale behind postponing a plebiscite. If a majority of Australians want it and a vast minority don’t want it, then it is clear that Australians are ready to vote on it. The consequences of marriage redefinition are already evident and by the statement “The longer they deny us our promised plebiscite, the more we will uncover about the real consequences of redefining marriage.” it reaffirms that there is continually more at stake with family structures being affected by the legislation in countries that already in support of SSM. The scepticism you exhibit and the unreasonable delay in holding a public vote is stifling both debate and democracy.

      As for childhood sex changes, they are occurring and the service exists in Australia: http://www.rch.org.au/adolescent-medicine/gender-service/

      • Ash where is the scepticism? David S was the one querying the significance of the survey results and i do agree with him.But as he is consistently the one engaging in reasoned argument on this blog I take issue with this being labelled scepticism (though I am sure he is quite capable of speaking for himself).

        My comment was a genuine query: I could not follow the logic of AJ’s argument. I would have thought the outcome of a plebiscite was still too close to call (as so many things are these days) so that a delay would on Aj’s and your own logic increase the NO vote.

        It’s not as though there is a great likelihood of an early election.Possibly AMF Is aware of an increased likelihood of a parliamentary vote, but I’m certainly not.

        On the matter of childhood sex changes, the RCH link suggests that parental involvement is essential for all children under 18.The Daily Wire article does not recognise this.

        • Margaret,

          On the RCH website it has parent/carer, and this is where the government authorities can get involved when a parent refuse to give their legal consent.

          • Janine i believe this would apply only when the parent no longer has legal custody of the child.Not sure why ‘carer’ is now being used where in the past ‘guardian’ would have been the term.

            The question of whether the wishes of a parent who is still the legal guardian can be overridden is quite separate.That involves a court order, very rarely given (cf case in WA last year where parents of terminally ill child refused to consent to radiotherapy and chemotherapy that might have prolonged the child’s life but at the expense of serious damage to quality of life).

            I’m simply saying that i believe the Daily Wire article is very misleading.

    • AJ

      Margaret, continuing to be bullied into silence by SSM Activists is tiresome. A Plebiscite will provide a platform where both sides of the debate must be given a fair hearing. That’s why the activists don’t want the Plebiscite. Once people are given the opportunity to see the long term impact of SSM on society and children in particular, many do change their view in support of traditional marriage. The longer they wait, the more fallout we are seeing in countries where it’s currently legal. However, in the meantime, traditional marriage supporters continue to be demonised in Australia.

      • AJ I respect your reasoning, though I beg to differ. I do not think it is realistic to expect a plebiscite this year.

        Also I do not think that support for traditional marriage will be increased unless we are scrupulously truthful in our claims.Articles such as the one from the Daily Wire are in my view unhelpful simply because they are, knowingly or unwittingly, ill informed.

        I very much appreciate the link posted by Ash because it confirms the inaccuracy of the article.

        • AJ

          The link Ash posted was written specifically FOR parents. It is completely unrelated to the separate directive issued to teachers.

          • AJ I am still concerned about the accuracy of the Daily Wire Story.

            I understood Ash’s post simply to be evidence that the treatment is taking place in Victoria (which i did not intend to contest).But at the same time it does set out the conditions under which a child/adolescent is accepted for treatment and unless I am missing something those conditions essentially leave no scope for treatment without parental knowledge or consent.

            “Essentially’ because if you look at the referral form (which is part of the information on the site) there is arguably scope for treatment of a child/adolescent no longer in the care of their parent.Now this may well be what gave rise to the report in the Daily Wire but I would argue that first of all it is a very minor exception in terms of numbers and second that it cannot be otherwise.If a parent no longer has legal custody of their child then someone else has the legal right to consent to medical treatment in loco parentis. But that ‘someone’ is the child’s legal guardian, NOT the school.

            The other point that emerges clearly from reading the RCH information is that the treatment offered to young children is purely counselling. For young adolescents it is puberty blockers (and yes i know there are issues involved in their usage). Only later is there any scope for treatment that may not be reversible.

            So again the Daily Wire article is misleading.

  5. Thanks Margaret for that support. A thought in support of AJ. I see the role of the lead theme for this site to be to stimulate reaction as much as to give information. To come up with a theme every few weeks so that we do some homework of our own is something to be grateful for; it keeps the site alive.

    • David I entirely agree.Though the themes also appear on Facebook the blog gives far more scope for discussion.
      In any case I have been blocked from the Facebook page, I can only assume for asking too many questions.

      Doing my homework involves (for me at least) checking out the veracity of articles (this is partly because it is part of my work with a church based organisation to disseminate accurate information to our members).

      And in this case the more I look at this story the more concerned I become about how reliable it is. I wish there was some corroboration from an Australian source, because it is not surprising that an overseas publication may not have access to full information on Australian law in this area.

      I’m not suggesting that the article was published other than in good faith, or that the AMF quoted it other than in good faith. Just suggesting that it needs further checking.Hopefully Dr Van Gend as a medical practitioner may be able to comment on this.

Leave a comment