LGBT activists don’t want to march to the same old tune

We are told that gay people just want marriage, like any other couple – but we have heard US activist Michelangelo Signorile urge gays “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely”. The Sydney Writers’ Festival in 2012 heard from lesbian activist Masha Gessen that “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie.”

This refusal to march to the same tune in marriage is symbolised by the refusal of LGBT activists to march to the same tune in the military.

Boston's annual St Patrick's Day parade has traditionally been an opportunity for those who served in the armed forces to march side by side, in a display of unity.

But LGBTQ veterans were not interested in a display of solidarity with their comrades. OutVets is a group of LGBTQ veterans who decided they wanted to march under the rainbow flag, in direct violation of the Allied War Veterans Council’s rules that there be no advertisement or display of any agenda or ideology. No other group is permitted to display their flag or logo of choice. Not the women who have served in the military. Not international service men and women, who would love to proudly wave their own flag. Not African Americans (There was no 'Black Lives Matter' flag) and not the LGBTQ community.

Of course, the only group who took issue with this rule, was the LGBTQ community, who defied the rules and chose to march with their rainbow flag.

So, instead of a powerful display of unity, showing that all members of the military are equal, the LGBTQ community chose to create division.

The march became a display of who is attracted to people of the same sex and who is not.

OutVets, in a Facebook post, said, "We served our country with honor and distinction. But even after bringing honor to this parade, this community, and to all those who have served, we fight every day to be treated with the basic dignity that comes with service to country."

So standing side by side with their comrades is not enough, the LGBTQ community MUST be given the power to defy authority and create division.

Think it won’t happen here? It already has. In this year’s annual Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, the Australian military marched wearing “a rainbow-coloured Army Pride lapel pin.

“The official pin features the iconic Rising Sun badge wrapped in the rainbow colours of the same sex marriage campaign.

“It is a blatantly political symbol, disrespecting the Anzac spirit in order to make a contentious political point, in direct contravention of official Army guidelines in place since 1903 to protect Australian Army emblems.” - Miranda Devine.

The rules clearly state the rising sun badge “cannot be redrawn, recoloured, renamed, modified, cropped, rotated, manipulated or altered in any way...or used a part of a new logo”.

The rules simply do not apply to the serious LGBTQ activists, who are prepared, like Gessen, to lie about what they intend to do with marriage..

Do you really think the rules won’t change once they get to march in the marriage parade – and “radically redefine it”, like Signorile says?

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

8 Responses

  1. Division is the name of this whole saga;division in society,in families,in churches,separating friends, in commerce and industry with Qantas CEO saying ‘if you dont like/agree then dont fly and dont Bank.

  2. They go by their own rules. LGBTQ activists will not stop until they make every facet of society subservient to them.

    Enough is enough.
    Keep the Australian army apolitical.

  3. Let the LGBTQ have the term marriage. Heterosexual marriage needs to coin a new term for their sanctified unions.Let all who hold to the traditional understanding of the male/female roles and sexuality refuse to speak or use the term marriage in favour of their own term. To go even further let all who disagree with the same sex marriage forgo the State marriage and live heterosexual de facto relationships. This would keep the clear distinction between the right and the wrong views of male/female sexuaklity and their roles.

    • Michael

      Stan,
      You’re right that people who don’t subscribe to the LGBTIQA+ delusional worldview, will need to declare independence from the federal government’s deregulated civil marriage system, with its legalised sodomy as the marital act, falsified legal documents (marriage/birth certificates), plastic sex and paper families.

      However, the LGBTIQA+ party has absolutely no right to the word ‘marriage’, as it doesn’t describe a same-sex couple. or their sexual behaviour. It’s the LGBTIQA+ dictators who need to find another word. Marriage is life-long, faithful “one-flesh” union of a man and a woman, consummated and maintained by natural sexual intercourse, able to procreate new life. Marriage was created by God, not by the government. A man is no more able to marry another man, than he is to become a mother.

      • Michael,

        I would say, “A man is no more able to marry another man than he is able to become his own mother.”

        • Michael

          Janine,
          Thanks for the update. An LGBTIQA+ man can become his own mother. If a man can marry any other man, he can marry his own father, thus becoming his father’s wife, and his own mother.

      • Michael,

        I really appreciate your comments on this idea or opinion regarding “marriage is between 2 people” as I have made a complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission for religious discrimination and a meeting is being organised.

        I have a past history for being a “whistle blower” for an illegal practice in a major teaching hospital. Now I have raised the serious problem of falsification of a legal document – a death certificate for the proposed legal assisted dying practice in Victoria. The Victorian government has proposed that healthcare practitioners can record the patient’s terminal illness as the cause of death on the patient’s death certificate rather than the truth in the patient’s medical history which would accurately record a lethal drug prescribed by 2 medical doctors with the patient’s consent. I have been told I should be going to the media over this serious problem as I have been informed by the Victorian ANMF professional indemnity insurance that there is no insurance available anywhere in Australia for the falsification of any legal documents including a death certificate, so healthcare practitioners would be doing this practice at their own risk.

        Victorian hospitals would need insurance incase a lethal drug caused a wrongful death. All care and treatment in hospital must be covered by insurance but how much does it cost to cover a wrongful death by a lethal drug with no antidote? A person could be prescribed a lethal drug at their home but later be admitted to hospital with or without this drug. Since this lethal drug would be prescribed by 2 medical doctors it would need to be recorded in the patient’s medical records and on the patient’s drug chart. The patient could change their mind after taking the lethal drug and a relative could witness this event and demand for medical intervention. The relative could become upset and take the hospital to court and claim that the healthcare practitioner falsified the patient’s medical certificate with the patient’s terminal illness as the cause of death rather than the lethal drug which would be accurately recorded in the patient’s history and the relative would claim that the patient had changed their mind and didn’t want to die. This case scenario would be quite complex in court due to the lack of past court cases. I have found out from my own personal life insurance company that they currently don’t cover a legal assisted dying practice and they’re currently doing a case scenario to investigate the possibilities. This case scenario is currently been investigated at the highest level in the life insurance company as they rely on an accurate death certificate because they’re not allowed to review a patient’s medical history to verify that healthcare practitioners are telling the truth on the patient’s death certificate. Life insurance companies have the right to take healthcare practitioners to court if they falsify a legal document such as a death certificate and the healthcare practitioner won’t have any professional indemnity insurance for the falsification of any legal document as they do this practice at their own risk. Also, this practice of falsifying death certificate will undermine professional conduct in the workplace as healthcare practitioners will no who is killing patients and then lying about it.

        How much limited resources of staff, time and money will be required to establish and maintain this proposed legal assisted dying practice which isn’t really care nor treatment? How will healthcare practitioners prioritise this practice when demand for real care and treatment is high? This practice kills patients rather than improve patient’s health outcome. All medical doctors and registered nurses know that a legal assisted dying practice isn’t real care nor treatment because if they did this to their own family member they would be charged with murder. A legal assisted dying practice isn’t a free service, and will take limited resources away from real care and treatment that improves patient’s health outcomes. Please pray that the insurance companies, APHRA, ANMF, AMA, and MPs whom I have informed would debate this serious problem of establishing and maintaining a death practice in Victoria. The WA committee want me to write them a letter regarding this serious problem. I have been informed by a professor in legal ethics that I have raised some important issues that are now being faced by jurisdictions which have legalised euthanasia. Thanks again for all your comments as society needs to hear the truth.

        • Michael

          Janine,
          Thanks for all the work you’re doing on this. The Tasmanian “dying with dignity” bill was again defeated this year, but is sure to come up again next year, especially if there’s a change of government at the next election due in March, or if the Liberals are reduced to a minority government. I will get onto my MPs about this (Tasmania has five per electorate).

Leave a comment