Senator Penny Wong cannot let go of this obsession with silencing the voice of the Australian people in the promised plebiscite. See yesterdays ARTICLE in The Guardian.

She says that views which oppose Labor's stated policies to introduce SSM "within 100 days" and fund the appalling Safe Schools program are a "peril" and no further discussion should be entered into.

Let us look at the list of "perils" that Senator Wong identifies from the recent election campaign:

1. That Chinese voters in the electorate of Chisholm "believe same-sex marriage is “against normal practice”". That is a very bland and factual statement about normality: statistically, physiologically, culturally, any way you cut it. A statement of the obvious - no "peril" to see here. Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.

2. That "Chinese people didn’t want the next generation “destroyed” by “rubbish” like transgender identity" - as peddled relentlessly by the Safe Schools material. But wait a minute - Senator Wong's former party leader, the Hon Mark Latham, said just the same thing. He wrote:

Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”. It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity… As parents we need to make our views known to election candidates and school leaders alike. Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation.

The Chinese are only speaking the same common sense as Mr Latham on a gravely serious matter. Good on them all. Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.

3. Hey, the AMF president is in her sights, too!

Another example was a flyer authorised by a past candidate for Liberal preselection and circulated in marginal seats that warned that a vote for Labor was a vote for “radical gay sex education”, Wong said.

Be proud, Senator, and own your party's policy! Your leader says he is "absolutely supportive" of the Safe Schools program in all its uncensored and mind-messing detail - as the flyer stated: "the radical ‘Safe Schools’ sexuality program teaches children they can be any gender they like; makes Year 7 students imagine they are 16 and going out with a person of the same sex; has taught kids they can have “two virginities, my first time with a chick and my first time with a dude” and much more…"

That, Senator, is the very essence of "radical gay sex education".
Objection overruled. The Senator shall resume her seat.

4. The one objectionable item on the Senator's list is not even an endorsed piece of election material - and nobody has owned it. Written in Chinese and distributed to one part of one safe liberal electorate (in other words a farce as a campaign leaflet), allegedly it says that homosexuals cannot have children and therefore it is a "death curse" to families. That is not a very civil way to make the point about the sterility of homosexual acts, and we share the Senator's objection. But if she is having to pick up scraps of unendorsed and obscurely translated paper in Chinese from one booth in one seat to use as her reason to stop a civil national debate proceeding amongst mature citizens, that is really dredging the bottom of the bucket.

Now we get to the pointy end of her interview with The Guardian, where she damns the character of all people who disagree with her:

I doubt the integrity of the opposing campaign,” she said. “I doubt the principles of those who have already demonstrated a willingness to stoop to hate speech, misinformation and falsehoods in their desire to avert equality.

The Senator is at risk of being removed from the chamber for that gratuitous bit of slander. What "hate speech", Senator Wong? What falsehoods? And what grounds do you have to question the integrity or principles of your fellow Australians? Remember - you are the servant of the Australian people, not its self-important judge.

Finally, the bottom line from the Senator:

Photo from The Age

Photo from The Age

"I oppose a plebiscite because I don’t want my relationship, my family, to be the target of discussion, disrespect and derision.”

Right, Senator: so it is OK for you to pose with your lesbian partner and her baby girl in the newspapers - as you have more than once - when you want to create a useful political image for the LGBT cause, but nobody else is allowed to discuss what such a family structure means to children? Free kicks to your side to argue that it is right and good for a lesbian couple to deliberately deprive a child of her father, but nobody is allowed to express a different opinion? We know of no person on our side of this debate who is interested in "derision" of any relationship, but we are all interested in "discussion" - and a politician should not be trying to silence discussion.

The AMF holds a different opinion to the Senator's on same-sex family structures, and we will say it now, as we have for years, and will continue to say during the plebiscite: no two women have the right to deliberately deprive a child of her relationship with her dad. To do so is to place the emotional desires of adults above the primal kinship needs of a child. It says a father does not matter to a child. It is, in our view, an abuse of adult power and deserves the strictest social criticism - indeed, we commend the law of the Senator's home state of South Australia, where (last time we looked) a lesbian couple is not allowed to create a child by artificial reproduction. Why such a law? Because the lawmakers, rightly, considered that it is not in the best interests of the child to be deliberately deprived of a father.

The rights of adults end where the birthright of a child begins. That point of view will not be silenced, Senator. Viva la plebiscite!

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

88 Responses

  1. You guys are just about the most absurdly sensitive snowflakes I’ve ever encountered. So it’s okay for you to say that LGBTI people are morally damaged people committing indecent and wrong acts on a moral par with slavery, no less, the moral fallout of which will be incalculable, “complicit in a serious offence against the child” (a dog whistle if there ever was one) by stealing children away from their parents, just because we want equal rights, and responsible for the complete and utter destruction of Western society (“moral dementia”, “decadent wreck”, “social self-mutilation”, “social suicide note”), but think that people pointing that out is slander?

    Also, just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. From my report, Six Months of Australian Homophobia, January – June, 2016:

    January 9: A gay man is bashed in the St. Kilda Gardens, by people yelling “fucking faggot, get the fuck out of here”.

    January 27: reports that flyers have been posted on Melbourne reading “Cure AIDS: Kick a poofter to death”.

    February 10: The Australian Marriage Forum states that the Safe Schools Coalition is a “calculated homosexual recruitment program” and is inflicting “moral damage” on children.

    February 12: Glen Tattersall, a Catholic priest appointed by the Archdiocese of Melbourne, writes a letter to his congregation, in which he calls the Safe Schools Coalition “a thinly disguised instrument for the corruption of youth”, “depraved and insidious” and a cause of “moral pollution”. He also writes that “to permit a same sex “date” at a school function is to give a clear message to students, parents and teachers that aberro-sexual behaviour is condoned.”

    February 13-14: A conservative group attempts to sabotage a formal for LGBTI youth.

    February 20: Two gay men are bashed in Sydney.

    February 21: Another gay man is bashed in Sydney.

    February 21: On ABC Radio’s “Sunday Nights” program, a caller states that if marriage equality becomes legal, “too many pedophiles are going to be getting hold of children”.

    February 24: New Matilda reports that the email campaign against the Safe Schools Coalition included many homophobic emails, one of which read “Any society that can countenance such evils has reached an advanced state of auto-destruction.”

    February 24: The Guardian reports that Safe Schools researchers are receiving abusive and threatening emails.

    February 25: Dawson MP George Christensen makes his infamous parliamentary speech about Safe Schools, in which he falsely alleges that it directs children to pornography and adult venues, based on nothing more than a number of indirect web links that can eventually lead to something inappropriate – a reality of all Internet content. He states that the program “look[s] a lot like the grooming work that a sexual predator might undertake.

    February 26: The Australian Christian Lobby endorses Christensen’s claim. Although the blog post has been removed from their website, their endorsement is verifiable by its URL.

    February 28: On his program, 2CH radio host Kel Richards labels Safe Schools “disgusting gay and lesbian propaganda” and calls workers in the program “child abuser[s]” because they are “getting into the minds of these little children and filling them with misleading information, untrue information” and “doing something really dangerous and really terrible to those children.

    February 29: On ABC’s “Q&A” program, Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton compares same-sex parenting to the Stolen Generations.

    March 3: The Guardian reports that Safe Schools workers (as opposed to researchers) are receiving abusive and threatening emails.

    March 14: Conservative columnist Rowan Dean writes about Safe Schools: “At the same time as we are conducting a royal commission into those institutions that in the past turned a blind eye to the rampant kiddyfiddlers in their midst, taxpayers are funding a program that allows today’s authority figures to engage in another rampant form of abuse: fiddling with young kiddies’ minds. All in the name of “anti-bullying”. He also calls the program “repellent” and “sickening”.

    March 16: In responding to the release of the government-commissioned review that vindicated the Safe Schools Coalition, George Christensen says “I think it would shock many parents to know that a paedophilia advocate [La Trobe University academic Gary Dowsett] was overseeing the organisation that came up with the Safe Schools program.” While his description of Dowsett as a “pedophilia advocate” is unfortunately accurate, Dowsett has had no role in creating the program.

    March 17: Lecturer at James Cook University and conspiracy theorist Merv Bendle writes in the conservative Quadrant magazine that LGBTI people are guilty of a “successful subversion of Australian society.”

    March 18: The ABC reports on leaflets distributed about gay former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson by the Bayside Community Coalition, opposing his eventual preselection for the seat of Goldstein. Senior members of the Liberal Party acknowledge that the leaflets are, in their words, “grubby and homophobic”.

    March 21: The Sunshine Coast Daily reports that the schools in Queensland that are members of the Safe Schools Coalition will not be made public knowledge due to the schools receiving homophobic abuse.

    April 10: A gay man is bashed in the Sydney suburb of Newtown by people calling him homophobic slurs.

    April 23: At the Australian Christian Lobby’s national conference, American conservative Christian author Eric Metaxas warns that “God will judge” supporters of the Safe Schools program and calls for “riots in the streets” against the program.

    April 23: Metaxas may regret his call for “riots in the streets”, because that’s close to what happened the same day over in Perth. A rally in support of Safe Schools was counter-protested by the United Patriots Front, members of whom shouted “pedo scum off our streets”. Five members of the United Patriots Front initiated a conflict with Safe Schools supporters, and one UPF member pushed a woman.

    April 26: Neo-Nazi activist Neil Erikson assaults a protester at an Australian Christian Lobby event. The assault was preceded by a video posted to his Facebook page, in which he said “Because I don’t see any fucking fags coming out against Safe Schools, I’m going to paint all you finooks with the same brush. Youse are trying to infect our children with your dirty, dirty, filthy, borderless minds, You are fucking filth.” (The protest did include some disruptive behaviour from pro-LGBTI protesters, which is not approved of, but the violence was by anti-LGBTI protesters.)

    April 30: The Age reports that leaflets opposing a Pride Match in the Victorian Football League were distributed at the match, and compared same-sex parenting to the Stolen Generations.

    May 3: A column by Merv Bendle published in Quadrant links homosexuality to the rise of Nazism in Germany, and uncritically promotes The Pink Swastika, a book that makes this point by anti-LGBTI activist Scott Lively, who has visited Uganda to advocate for its anti-homosexuality legislation.

    May 7: reports that the aforementioned leaflets were also distributed at a Liberal Party fundraiser.

    May 10: A blog post by the Australian Christian Lobby criticises the Safe Schools Coalition for promoting the International Day Against Homophobia, saying “the Safe Schools hub also encourages schools to celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia. There is no international day against bullying over body image – the most rampant form of bullying in schools by a long way.” The events in Orlando surely refute this argument.

    May 16: Pedestrian reports on the homophobic emails that Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has received for his strong and unequivocal support for LGBTI equality.

    May 31: The Australian Christian Lobby publishes a blog post by Lyle Shelton that says, in reference to LGBTI equality: “The cowardice and weakness of Australia’s “gatekeepers” is causing unthinkable things to happen, just as unthinkable things happened in Germany in the 1930s.” The Nazi comparison draws significant controversy and derision within Australia, including coverage in Fairfax Media, a report on Channel 10’s “The Project”, and condemnation by LGBTI and Jewish groups. The comment also receives international attention.

    June 15: A gay man is harassed and nearly assaulted on a Sydney train by people who said “I can’t be on the same train as faggots.”

    June 16: In the first of three incidents in a troubling day for LGBTI people, gay Greens candidate for the seat of Higgins Jason Ball finds his campaign posters have been vandalised with the word “fag”.

    June 16: Tim Wilson is approached by a woman who tells him “you’ll probably be offended: I was going to vote Liberal then I found out you were gay, so I am not going to.”

    June 16: Despite condemning the Orlando massacre earlier in the week, Malcolm Turnbull hosts a dinner for the evening breaking of the Ramadan fast, in which he prioritises cultural sensitivity to Islamic homophobia over the rights of LGBTI people. One of the guests is Sheik Shady al-Suleiman, who has previously said “homosexuality was spreading all these diseases. Allah will send on them diseases they have never experienced before.”

    June 18: In a further negative development in the aftermath of the dinner, The Australian reports that “the Australian National Imams Council, of which Sheik ­Alsuleiman is president, has at least three executive members who believe the only punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty, according to Islamic law.”

    June 28: The SBS reveals that multiple Christian churches are renting public schools to preach homophobic messages, with some joining the three aforementioned members of the Australian National Imams Council in advocating that LGBTI people be executed.

    Now do you see the concern? AJ/Admin, any comment?

    • Nick,
      Thanks for highlighting all your concerns about people in powerful positions that don’t agree with the humanist “Marriage Equality.” The NHS in England is in a crisis situation with more people identifying with transgender. The NHS doesn’t have the finances or professional skills to treat all these people.

      I recently found a booklet called, “Becoming Married” by Alan E Craddock Ph.D. My husband and I discussed the topics in this booklet in premarital classes over 18yrs ago. The booklet described marriage as a journey. First Topic – Being Realistic about marriage: Myths about Marriage – Romantic love can never fade or be challenged. Some realities about marriage is it will encounter some difficulties and will face some challenges. Second topic – Making decisions and sharing work: Many people in our society divide into two different types of preferences – 1. Traditional preference is for men and women to divide their responsibilities and work on the basis of their sex…Making important decisions will be likely to be seen to involve greater responsibility for the man and he will be expected to be the final authority when disputes arise…However, the main ingredient is division of work, responsibility and power on the basis of being male and female. 2. The equalitarian or modern preference is very different. The emphasis is upon men and women having equal rights and being capable of performing most marital activities in similar kinds of ways. Many responsibilities and areas of work are seen as able to be shared. Where work is to be divided, it will be done on the basis of preference, ability and availability rather on the basis of sex. Making decisions is seen to be a democratic process in which husband and wife have equal rights…There are many happy traditionalists and also many happy equalitarians. The really important issue is not whether a couple takes one view or the other, or even some kind of mixture of the two. What is important is whether the husband and wife share the same view and are happy about it. Topic 3 – Communicating and Handling Conflict. Topic 4 – Personality Issues. Topic 5 – Sex and communication: Sex “making love” is one of the strongest and most pleasurable areas of your marriage, but it is also an area in which many couples experience disappointment and frustration. Topic 6 – Some common “Battlegrounds.” Topic 7 – Religion and Marriage. Dr Alan E Craddock never mentioned anywhere in the booklet that same-sex couples should get married or they should commit a life-time of living together. The topics of marriage are only discussed between one man committing to one woman for life.

      Premarital classes are extremely important for any marriage to last a life-time, especially in our current society. However, our society has no hope of married couples being successful if they have no idea of the meaning and purpose of marriage. Humanist can make marriage to only mean a legal contract between any 2 people, but this is extremely different to a religious marriage. A secular society should treat religious and non-religious people the same, but the law is unable to treat a civil and religious marriage the same if they’re different. Therefore, I should have the right to not be forced in getting my religious marriage recognised by the state because this isn’t a part of my belief system, culture, family history or religious practice. I don’t personally need a marriage certificate from the NSW marriage registry office, unless government agencies force me to have one (I don’t think they should be pointing a gun to my head).

      Australia has been the least progressive of all the western countries for women to be in full-time paid employment whilst having children. Humanists want “Marriage Equality” because they want to end the “Traditional” preference of mothers staying home raising their children. Humanists are interested in having babies and children being raised in child-care and schools so they gain the power to control and influence over the next generation of children. Companies and businesses would like Australia to adopt a more secular society with humanist ideas because humanists aren’t against them having power to control the inequalities in wealth. Humanist don’t reject CEOs getting paid million dollar salaries whilst other workers rely on two jobs to cover basic living standards. There is a huge inequality of wealth throughout the western world and the majority of poor people are suffering physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, social and spiritual abuse. Americans and europeans have spent billions of dollars on the humanist “marriage equality,” whilst poor people have been left unemployed, homeless and hungry.

      Whilst recently holidaying in America, I noticed in lots of newspapers were reporting on the extremely high suicide rate of ex-service men and women from serving in the recent wars. No where in the articles did it mention the solution was a “marriage” to decrease these suicide rates. Males or females “coming out” as “gay” or “lesbian” is really no difference to males and females being identified by their hair as “blonde.” They can claim that they’re discriminated against the majority of dark hair people because of all the negative, but funny blonde jokes. However, our society is very serious and private about sex and sexual preferences, and there has been a religious morality to sexual practices. Therefore, people make a great deal about “coming out – gay, lesbian, bisexual or pre-marital sex, prostitute, asexual, incest, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia etc.” I was glad when my “gay” boyfriend was comfortable telling me about his male partner, and I had no problem telling my husband or children about my boyfriend. The Australian government can create a Disneyland marriage for all Australians including same-sex couples, but I will never believe this is a true, traditional marriage. Same-sex marriage is like Disneyland as it is real for those whom believe in it and buy into the practice, but for the majority of people it is only a fantasy created by man’s imagination. You may want to believe that people will change with time, but I haven’t forgotten what happen to my german forefathers and that was over 100 hundred years ago. The LGBTIAQ lobby group has raised the past cultural, racial and religious practices in the push for the humanist “Marriage Equality.” The result has been more people are reflecting on their own cultural, racial and religious practices and this is causing a division within all western countries.

  2. Ash

    Not AJ here, but still a response speaking to your misplaced diatribe, Nick.

    1. Calling the AMF a group of ‘absurdly sensitive snowflakes’ is a typical leering DARVO reaction. Look it up.
    2. You are the one saying LGBTI people are ‘morally damaged people committing indecent and wrong acts on a moral par with slavery’. The AMF certainly isn’t. Nor does the Bible, which I’m almost certain you are using/misquoting here to vilify SSM dissenters.
    3. Realistically, if same sex couples are looking to have a child through surrogacy or sperm donation, the progeny of this process will obviously not have either a mother or a father. The child will have two mums or two dads or parent 1 and parent 2. That is plain obvious. So when you say ‘stealing children away from their parents, just because we want equal rights’, although that is an embellishment, it does highlight that adult rights trump that of children to a mother and father. Simple.
    4. Your continued reporting of discrimination against gays and lesbians does not have any weight in this discussion: all of those incidents are a matter of the law under the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill, not a means to try and bolster support for SSM or the SSCA program.

    I’m sorry Nick, your concerns are noted, but do not mean a change in the law is warranted.

    • My listing of those incidents was to oppose a plebiscite, you fool.

      • Ash

        Nick, your indignation isn’t necessary. Have some respect. I’m old enough to be your father.
        Again, isolated incidents like those you list will occur whether or not a plebiscite is held. The feared ‘platform for homophobia’ can be stamped out by bringing each matter to the police as the law enforcers. They will uphold the laws that protect against hate crimes.

        • The concern is not that the laws won’t be enforced. The concern is that these incidents are going to happen at all. Bringing it to the police doesn’t stop it from happening. It doesn’t negate the problem I am saying is already existing and will get worse under a plebiscite.

          • Ash

            Stopping the plebiscite will not prevent the problem either, Nick.
            Therefore it is the wrong solution, and in fact taking the people’s vote away from the SSM debate means that parliamentarians have to vote on a social issue that shouldn’t be on their table in the first place. A plebiscite will allow for debate, and of course violent protests will also occur, but don’t think for one minute that the violence will only be one-sided.

            In 2011 a Brisbane march for gay rights was met with supporters of man-woman marriage which led to a scuffle:
            One was attacked by pro-gay marriage marchers and left with an injury.

            “The gay rights rally was supposedly about achieving equal love, but it was clear that the people (who were) part of the rally did not show any sort of love to those who had a difference in opinion on gay marriage,” the spokesman said.

            Everyone believes their cause is just, and justifies their righteous anger with it. In this debate, it’s time to be mature about it and leave the emotions and isolated violence that have no place in the debate aside.

          • Has anything remotely similar to the incidents I’ve listed here happened in 2014 or 2015? No. Could the differene this year be that we have had vigorous and hostile debates over Safe Schools and marriage equality, with the comments made by opponents fuelling and inciting homophobia among more malicious people, who then go and do bad things?

            Also, if you would read that article about the Brisbane protest more closely, you’ll see that the police recorded no violence. If there was any, it was probably in self-defence, because the Christian fascists started the scuffle by trying to grab signs out of the hands of pro-gay marriage protesters.

          • Ash

            Nonsense Nick. You are seeing what you want to see, not the truth of the matter.
            There has been violence on peaceful protesters defending marriage in the past and no doubt will be in the future. The point is that there will be violent dissidents on both sides of the argument, which should never be a means to emotively legislate for or against SSM.
            The debate needs to be civil, thoughtful and sober.
            SSCA has not let to violent revolts from either side of the debate surrounding it. There has been a lot of online discussion, even hostility, mainly because people can hide behind the anonymity of forums such as this one. It makes a very different scenario when people speak face to face.

            You are catastrophising over what resistance there has been against the SSCA program and SSM. I personally have no hostility against homosexuals or supporters of Safe Schools, but I am frequently seen as inciting hate and homophobic. The more vocal and embellished the cry of ‘homophobia!’ and ‘liberate gays!’ the more you believe society will support the same-sex cause. Wrong. Sorry.

    • It was the AMF who said it, not me. I was just pointing out that they said it. Here’s the quote:

      ““Just as the five judges in 1857 were so degenerate as to enshrine slavery in the Constitution, so five judges today enshrine sodomy in the Constitution. The fallout for the moral culture of the US and for the education of children is incalculable.”

      So with regard to “moral culture”, marriage equality is “just as” slavery was. That is saying that LGBTI people are committing acts on a moral par with slavery.

      • Ash

        SSM has nothing to do with slavery. Immorality is called out as it is, sodomy is acceptable to some and not acceptable to others, but there are absolutes that we ought to respect. Deny them and all we do is allow whatever is right in our own eyes. The peril of such hedonism does not come to light until some time after enshrining laws that support the adult-centric, hedonistic behaviours some of society is calling morally okay.

  3. Ash

    I had a look at your blog, Nick, and whilst I admire your efforts in trying to expose anti-LGBT hate, which I agree along with most other Australians is unacceptable, isolated incidents accumulating on your blog are much the same in just about any culturally diverse situation. You will find blogs on Islamophobia, sex discrimination, workplace harassment/discrimination and the like. They are great for whistleblowing, but because we already have laws to protect victims, including homosexuals, we would just need them enacted, not amended or repealed.

    Mr Turnbull will obviously be inviting people from all sorts of backgrounds to dine and chat with him, including those with opposing viewpoints. That doesn’t make him a homophobe or condone homophobia. Jesus himself dined with sinners, and why? Because it is those far away from God that need Him the most.

    This 2013 article is a good read when it comes to looking at the evidence of what has come about with SSM in the US. Well before the Supreme Court decision was made:

    • “I had a look at your blog, Nick, and whilst I admire your efforts in trying to expose anti-LGBT hate, which I agree along with most other Australians is unacceptable, isolated incidents accumulating on your blog are much the same in just about any culturally diverse situation. You will find blogs on Islamophobia, sex discrimination, workplace harassment/discrimination and the like. They are great for whistleblowing, but because we already have laws to protect victims, including homosexuals, we would just need them enacted, not amended or repealed.”

      Interestingly, this is not the attitude that was taken by the AMF when David’s medical practice was vandalised. In that instance, that one instance was indicative of a wave of intolerance against gay mariage opponents. They may actually have a point in saying that, but if they have a point about a wave of intolerance over one incident, do I not have a point about a wave of intolerance in over 30 incidents, including vandalism but also five violent homophobic bashings and advocating that LGBTI people be executed?

      • Ash

        No violence is justified. The law is there to protect people from any such acts that threaten another citizen.
        The medical practice vandalism made a cameo appearance in two newspapers and on ABC online. There is no ‘wave’ of intolerance against gay marriage opponents. There is only opposition to gay marriage. Advocates for LGBTI execution do not have a place in the discussion of SSM or the SSCA program, but there is nothing undemocratic or unjustified about a plebiscite, which can certainly be held peacefully in a country like Australia which takes discrimination seriously.

        • Well, at least you’re consistent about waves of intolerance.

          But again, the problem of homophobia is not solved by having laws. Having laws against it isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t want these homophobic incidents to happen, laws enforced against them or not.

          • Ash

            A sober article on the matter published in the Australian last year addressed it quite well: The real issue is conceptually simple — it is whether same-sex marriage will deny conscience rights to much of the population. The alternative is a new spirit of tolerance guaranteed by law where same-sex marriage sits in parallel with undiminished ­religious liberty.

            The omens are not good. As the years advance there has been ­virtually no debate about the real issues surrounding same-sex ­marriage. The campaign for change is strong and tactically brilliant based on the ideological slogan “marriage equality”, one of the most effective slogans in many decades.

            The collapse of the moral authority of the churches, especially the Catholic Church, driven above all by the child sexual abuse phenomenon across a range of nations, has seen a depleted and often unchristian response by the churches as they singularly fail to meet the demand of same-sex marriage advocates.

            Yet the majority media reaction to this situation — “let’s get on with the change” — is ignorant and irresponsible. The real debate is probably just starting. It poses an unprecedented challenge for our law-makers. There has never been an issue like this, as the US ­Supreme Court decision made clear.

            This week in The Australian and in an interview with Inquirer, Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, began to confront the choice our society faces.

            Wilson advanced two propositions that shatter the haze of misinformation and emotion that surrounds this issue. First, that none of the bills on same-sex ­marriage offers anything like the essential protection of religious freedom and individual conscience. And second, that individual belief and religious freedom must be seen as “equally important” as the right to same-sex ­marriage.

            The US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges is flawed for two reasons. First, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “The court is not a legislator. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

            This decision is an arrogant denial of US democracy and law-making even though it follows a US tradition of law creation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pre-empted the process by which state legislature after state legislature was voting on same-sex marriage.

            Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent: “Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.”

            The second problem, as Australian lawyer and priest Frank Brennan argues, is that the upshot in the US will be “years of litigation” about the rights of religious bodies that is sure to be “nasty and hard fought”. The reason is because a court decision will now replace legislative decisions.

            The consequence is writ large: where marriage equality is delivered by court decision, religious liberty is not protected. Where marriage equality in the US is delivered by the legislature there tends to be a political bargain, with religious liberty provisions of varying extents.

            The applause in this country for the US Supreme Court decision, while understandable, is a disappointing and bad omen. It suggests the public grasp of this issue in Australia is far distant from the debate that is needed.

            “I have accepted the inevitability that civil marriage in Australia will be redefined to include same-sex couples,” Brennan told Inquirer. But Brennan warned it was “another thing” to require “all persons, regardless of their religious beliefs, to treat same-sex couples even in the life and activities of the church as if they were married in the eyes of the church”.

            He poses a series of questions. Will religious institutions in Australia be able to follow current policy on shared accommodation on a church site? Will religious schools be able to limit employment to teachers who follow church teaching on sexual relations? Will faith- based adoptive agencies be able to prefer placement with a traditional family unit?

            Brennan said these and related issues “should now be squarely on the table”. In truth, this is long overdue. Brennan finished, however, on an ominous note: “Some of us support the state recognition of both same-sex marriage AND (his emphasis) religious freedom exercised in speech, actions and institutional arrangements. Sadly, many who advocate same-sex marriage have no time for those of us who espouse religious freedom as well.”

            Brennan’s fears are well placed given the debate in Australia in recent times. The politicians are not serious about this issue and neither is the media. It is reduced to a footnote of minor import yet rolled out to justify their same-sex marriage policy.

            As Wilson knows, this is not the way to proceed. It only guarantees institutional division and rancour. The core question remains: what is the real ideological objective of the same-sex marriage campaign?

          • Ash – I have read your conversation with interest. Initially I was only enjoying witnessing you crush your opponent however this gave way to an enlightening read. Your sober-minded, fair and dare I say tolerant responses cut through a lot of the noise, misdirection and bullying of the LGBT lobbying. I pray that you can listen to the Holy Spirit and use your gifts to the benefit of all aussies = yes, even those who wish to identify by sinful acts and behaviour.

          • Ash

            Harry, thank you. It is vitally important we take the emotion out of the discussion as all emotion does is cloud judgement and lead to pitiful name calling and disdain. I come from a science background, so crunching the data comes natural for me, but social studies is a tough one with too many confounding factors to form a decent regression analysis on cause and effect. That’s why the marriage debate is much more than what the data can offer. We must be kind, wise as a serpent yet gentle as a dove because we have been sent forth as sheep amongst wolves. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers that undermine our moral fabric.

            We just cannot afford to let slide the reason for why marriage is sanctified and set apart from all other types of relationships. We should be free to openly discuss with others who would otherwise not thought about why marriage is important to preserve and therefore might be easily swayed by the media-driven momentum of ‘marriage equality’. I like referring people to watch an excellent short youtube video that encapsulates the issues of SSM and help people make up their own minds what marriage should represent and why:

            Making sense of marriage:
            SSM will affect everyone:
            The redefinition of marriage and equality for other relationships:

            I encourage everyone to watch these and others by the Marriage Equals group

          • Ash

            Thanks Harry. I am convinced we need to inform all Australians on what the redefinition of marriage means and not be flippant about the future of the institution that has sound foundations. In doing so we ought to be kind, wise as a serpent yet harmless as a dove and spread the word.

            I find these videos from Marriage Equals very easy viewing and worth sharing amongst all those who are not sure what all the fuss is about.
            Making Sense of Marriage:
            Same Sex Marriage will affect everyone:
            Marriage and equality of other relationships:
            Marriage and human rights:

            I would encourage everyone to share these videos with all who are willing to watch them.

          • Ash

            I apologise for the repeated post. I thought I lost my first response, but it seemed to have come back after I posted the second version of the response…

    • Did Nick just paste a book in here or what? I don’t see how crime statistics are in any way related to SSM – although there is no doubt at all that more motherless and fatherless children will contribute to the erosion of our once safe land. A massive over-representation in prisons by people from broken homes. Anybody who thinks the “happiness” of an adult relationship takes higher precedence than giving a child the best possible start in life is not only the worst kind of selfish, but obviously does not care about society either. Just look at what is going on in the world = do you really think this is a good time to allow your cultural cringe to get a say? If you are so impressed by America’s morals, perhaps you think we should introduce a free for all on firearms too?

  4. ian

    Thanks Ash for your rational factual and respectful response. I feel persuaded you walk in truth.
    I am reading Patricia Morgan’s “The marriage Files” an analytical survey of the UK post numerous legislative changes on this matter. Highly recommended.

    • Ash

      Thanks for the tip Ian. I look forward to reading her material as time permits.

  5. Ash

    That’s an unreasonable expectation Nick.
    The whole reason why we have laws is to protect citizens from those who break them. If no-one committed any crimes there would be no need for laws.
    We cannot prevent all cases of theft or murder with their respective laws, but they are there as a disincentive for those who intend to (or inadvertently) break the law.
    We don’t need to include same sex couples in marriage to defeat homophobia, because it wouldn’t.
    You can’t keep justifying this claim that SSM will reduce crimes against same sex couples. All SSM will do is be a tool for same-sex couples to systematically (supported by law) create a normalised motherless and fatherless generation of children, which is something the Australian public should know before voting in the plebiscite.

    • You can’t keep justifying this claim that SSM will reduce crimes against same sex couples.

      That’s not my argument. My argument is against a plebiscite when I point these things out.

      • Ash

        There is no reasonable argument against holding a plebiscite on such an important social matter. Ramming it through parliament is as Bill Shorten put it 3 years ago when Labor said SSM will not be decided by parliamentarians (my how times change quickly) because it is too important to give glib one line answers to change a social institution that has served mankind and the Australian people well for so many years.

        • No reasonable argument?

          It is expensive. It will cost $160 million at a time where it is necessary to cut spending.

          It is unnecessary. Parliament can do it without a plebiscite.

          It is pointless. It won’t be binding.

          It will be damaging, as I’ve already listed.

          It is unethical. A minority should not have to beg the majority to grant it equal rights.

          • Ash

            1. Expensive? Think about what costs the government puts into a number of other superfluous programs and tell me whether they compare to the importance of the definition of marriage. Think of it this way: the total budget for the government is $434.5 billion. The cost of the plebiscite will be 0.037% of this total budget. I would rather spend one 37,000th of the money that I contribute to in taxes to decide publicly on this important institution.

            2. The decision of what marriage is should not be a matter for parliament to decide. The law is fine as it is and the people can vote on whether they believe it is worth changing or not.

            3. It doesn’t have to be binding, but we can’t hold a referendum on it as our constitution does not require any repealing of man-woman relationships (as Ireland had). It is only pointless to those who believe the law should be changed. I could advocate for the scrapping of any plebiscite and press for the constitution to be amended like in Croatia such that SSM will never be legalised, but I am rather advocating for at least a public voice on the matter so as to allow this democratic society to voice its opinion.

            4. You keep saying it will be damaging when there is no evidence that it will be. None of the reports you mention prove that a plebiscite will cause any more such individual cases of unrest against SSM proponents.

            5. Unethical on the basis of human rights. No, there are no human rights denied a same-sex couple so that does not apply. I have gone into depth about this previously but I get the impression nothing that doesn’t bolster your argument is pondered in your mind, Nick.

            What is ethical is a democratic vote in a democratic country to decide on a social institution that we should democratically agree upon.

  6. Nick claims: (A plebiscite) “is unethical. A minority should not have to beg the majority to grant it equal rights.”
    Hmmm: If Nick is opposed to discrimination, then surely his claim applies to all minorities? What about: speedsters; thieves; murderers; pedophiles; bigamists; FGM proponents; death to apostate proponents etc? All those are hopefully minorities that are, and should be, discriminated against – hopefully because of the fact that ALL demonstrably show, on average, that men, women, children and society suffer worse outcomes when those minority behaviours are permitted or encouraged by the community.

    Currently there are no sanctions against same-sex-relationships, but to allow same-sex-‘marriage ‘, arguably promotes LGBTI etc lifestyles that social research overwhelmingly shows to, on average, result in worse outcomes for men, women, children and society on ALL measures. On that basis, in a similar way to where society bans speeding, pedophilia, etc, etc, then there is zero case for allowing ‘SSM’.

    But what is Nick’s worst fear? If we have honest and truthful debate re SSM, we might just make a rational decision that we were better off when same-sex relationships were kept private, or worse still, from Nicks perspective, banned.

    • “Hmmm: If Nick is opposed to discrimination, then surely his claim applies to all minorities? What about: speedsters; thieves; murderers; pedophiles; bigamists; FGM proponents; death to apostate proponents etc?”

      If you think homosexuality is like these things, you’re a horrible person. If not, your analogy doesn’t work.

      Also, you admitted that it would be “rational” to ban not just same-sex marriage, but same-sex relationships. Again: a completely random opponent of marriage equality has sympathies with making homosexuality illegal. We’re not talking about a fringe minority here. We’re talking a substantial amount of people.

    • Well said Peter

      Completely agree.

      This debate is NOT about “same sex marriage” it is about redefining marriage and endorsing a lifestyle which is not in the best interests of children.

      A child needs a mother and father.

  7. AR

    Australians are respectful and accepting of homosexual and lesbian relationships and communities; its about time the respect was reciprocated. Marriage is between one man and one women to the exclusion of all others. In Australia, men don’t marry men and women don’t marry women; its that simple.

  8. Ash

    Nick, let me give you a word of advice. Consider the GOOD and POSITIVE aspects of others’ words and actions wherever you can. I would encourage you to see that the world is not out to get you or vilify you at every instance. Believe it or not, speaking out against SSM is not speaking out against or opposing homosexuals.

    Peter is trying to say what I had elaborated previously, which I will reiterate:
    The Marriage Act currently discriminates against two people of the same sex who wish to get married. However it also discriminates against two minors from marrying, or two closely related people from marrying. There is appropriate discrimination applied, and is socially respected. It follows that for marriage to be ‘equal’ on grounds of sexual orientation, the law should not be restricted to just one type of sexually-intimate companionship. Why can’t a man marry two wives? Why isn’t prostitution treated as a form of short-term marriage? The discrimination is right and is what maintains the definition of marriage.

    If you want to say that SSM is not the same thing as polyandry and polygamy in the case of the law, what logical reason is there not to include polyandry in the marriage definition? So there is a reason why marriage is between one man and one woman. Any other amorous relationship is something else and should be defined as such.

    Men and women are different, complementary and equally important (and necessary). We cannot survive without heterosexual relationships, nor should we accept a genderless society as a social norm through legislation. Only marriage harnesses gender difference for the sustenance of the society. Redefining marriage to be indifferent to sexual identity reinforces individualism, turning human society into a matter of individual inclination and choice, divorcing it from the other important aspects it protects (children and kinship). With SSM, marriage will cease to be an institution which reflects the necessary and natural interdependence of men and women.

    • There are harms in recognising those arrangements that do not exist with gay marriage.

      • Ash

        Nick, apart from your speculated reasons for SSM, what harms there are in excluding gay and lesbian couples from the institution of marriage?

        • – They suffer the indignity and stability of being denied equal rights.
          – They endure greater legal uncertainties. See Marco and David Bulmer-Ruzzi.
          – They ability to be fully committed to each other is diminished.
          – Their children suffer from all of these things.

    • Excellent comment Ash.

      Totally reasonable.

      You will be called “homophobic” and “bigoted” regardless

  9. I am sick and tired of the LGBT community playing the “victim” card and using it kill free speech and robust debate.
    This is ESSENTIAL in a healthy democracy.
    They have no problem bankrupting bakeries and florists who oppose their lifestyles – but they want to be given special legal protection.

    It is obvious to a blind man that homosexuality is qualitatively different to heterosexual relationship.
    A simple analysis genital design clearly indicates this.

    The LGBT community are trying to KILL DEBATE AND DISCUSSION and force their views on the Australian public
    They are also sexualizing kids at an absurdly young age under the guise of “anti -bullying”
    This is BS

    A child needs a mother and father.

  10. Nick, “homosexuality is like those things” in the sense that the objective evidence of the social sciences overwhelmingly shows that it produces worse outcomes for the men, women and children involved and hence worse outcomes for society – on ALL measures. Please stick to rational debate of facts and their interpretation and avoid ad-hominen attack. You suggest that either I’m “a horrible person” or my analogy is wrong – but you have not shown that my analogy is wrong, or that I’m a horrible person.

    A democratic society should be able to legislate against what, on reasonable evidence, is not in their best interest. You earlier listed anecdotal ‘homophobic attacks’, some of which were people expressing their opinion, and some of which were assaults of various kinds. But what is the incidence of family violence within same-sex relationships compared to within heterosexual relationships? The social sciences indicate that promiscuity, jealousy and tension are higher within homosexual relationships and that can trigger more family violence. But is that violence due to homophobia, and the absence of ‘marriage’ or is it due to the very nature of homosexual behaviour and lack of long-term personal commitment – and would it be reduced or increased by endorsing homosexual marriage? Or would endorsing homosexual ‘marriage’ weaken real marriage and society. If we are not willing to debate these issues, then we press ahead carefully avoiding the evidence – and do everyone a dis-service.

    Yes I am sympathetic to arguments for making homosexuality illegal, and I suspect that a substantial number of people, even a majority, may agree with me. But I’m ambivalent on this: a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach may work; but, on the other hand, I see no reason why the whole of society should pay for repairing the physical and mental health damage caused by unhealthy sexual practices, or by smoking, or prostitution, or bigamy etc. Hence we should not endorse and encourage such behaviours.

    There is no irrational phobia here, it is logical and practical consideration of cause and effect based on the best available evidence. So perhaps a majority of people agree with me – or perhaps they agree with you. But unless we have a plebiscite where it is debated openly and rationally, many people will not hear the evidence. Or is that what you want? I hope not because I hope that you will better understand the risks to yourself and to society of homosexual behaviour: realising that homosexual behaviour, like speeding, murder, bigamy etc is a choice that is radically different from things you cannot change – like skin-colour, or fat/skinny/short/tall body plan, or the language you learnt from your mother.

    Stick to facts and evidence. Be cautious of anecdotal claims and personal attacks. Attack the argument/evidence/facts not the person. I wish you well. If you want evidence of the risks of homosexual behaviours, I recommend Bill Muehlenberg’s books.

    • I don’t know what “science” you are looking at, although you might be interested to know that unplanned pregnancies cost America $21 billion each year.

      And I don’t wish you well. I’ve got no obligation to be polite to evil people.

      • Ash

        Nick, social science is not a perfect science; we can’t perform randomised controlled trials on such social subject matter, so we are left with prospective/retrospective and cross-sectional studies that have shown negative outcomes with same sex couples compared with heterosexual couples on a number of levels. If the so promoted 19,000 studies are analysed that suggest no difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples are analysed, the vast majority of them were subject to confirmation, subject or authoritative bias. It is important to scrutinise the evidence before accepting it.

        As for quoting the figure for the cost of unplanned pregnancies in the US, it is an argument to support the empowerment of women to make better choices, avoid getting into trouble and prevent unwanted pregnancies. The solution for unplanned pregnancy is not abortion, or SSM or Safe Schools for that matter. The cost of unplanned pregnancies is nothing on the alternative of ending the life of human lifeforms that are voiceless and powerless in the abortion debate.

        Nick, indeed you have no obligation to be nice to anybody, but your unapologetic rudeness is unwelcome. A healthy debate relies on the mutual respect of its participants. Thank you.

        • Yeah – “mutual” respect. There’s nothing mutually respectful about him saying that and me respecting him nonetheless. Mutual disrespect is better than one-way respect, because it at least has a chance to turn into mutual respect.

          • Ash

            Nick, opposition against your stance is not disrespectful. I did not take Peter’s response to be disrespectful. It appears you have, and you have the audacity to label most of us here who stand behind marriage as overly sensitive snowflakes. Man up, Nick.

          • You don’t think comparing homosexuality to stealing, murder, pedophilia and FGM (among other horrors) is disrespectful?

            You don’t think saying it should be illegal is disrespectful?

            Your comment is a big insight into why opponents of marriage equality want us to stop using the word homophobe. They genuinely believe that there is nothing wrong with the awful things they are saying and doing.

          • It’s not overly sensitive to object to comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, murder, FGM etc or for calling for it to be made illegal, anymore than it’s overly sensitive to object to racism, you fool.

          • Ash

            Nick, you interpreted what was posted in the way you wanted to again cry foul and have a reason to vilify.
            Homosexuality is not compared to anything, but no, it is not disrespectful for someone to have an opinion that homosexuality is not appreciated by them. I personally do not appreciate homosexuality. That does not make me hate people who call themselves homosexual, and it does not mean that I must condone homosexuality in order for my opinion to be respected.

            As for your last comment, Nick, you have repeatedly called me a fool, disrespected me and I have just had enough of it.
            I will no longer be conversing with you.

      • “I don’t know what “science” you are looking at, although you might be interested to know that unplanned pregnancies cost America $21 billion each year.”

        This comment should alarm people. If you are not familiar with the reproductive process in the book “Brave New World”, you should famillarize yourself.

        Unplanned pregnancies are not due to a problem with heterosexuality or natural reproductive processes (which the statement implies). They are a result of the misuse of the sex organs and the breakdown of the family unit. Something the left has failed to acknowledge responsibility for.

  11. AJ, you have people openly saying that they want homosexuality to be made illegal. Any comment?

  12. Homofascists are making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, this is what they do well, Nick is a paid employee, there is a lot of money backing this movement to change our society, I hope that Australians are more aware of the consequences….as demonstrated in other countries

    • I have wondered if Nick has an affiliation with the political lgbt lobby.

      He certainly talks like a pollie, with an agenda and a one track mind.

      Money talks!

  13. Thank you Nick for pointing out the abuse homosexuals, like many Australians, suffer just for being who they are. I met one gay man who had been raped by other homosexuals. Another gay man confessed to being raped by3 men. 2 others testimonies I have heard, which are in the public forum, include sexual abuse by gay men . I am surprised that the LGBT community does not make these incidents more public and call for education about respect for human dignity. In its quest for justice I am sure it will soon address this oversight.

  14. Nick thanks for putting together this deeply disturbing account of what has been happening in Australia in recent months, even before the plebiscite.I’m going to be circulating it as widely as possible to family, friends and church colleagues.I’m at a loss to understand how any reasonable person could fail to see it as disturbing or to acknowledge that Senator Wong has ample grounds for her concern.
    I note comments by Queensland MP Trevor Evans that the plebiscite will be worth it if it puts the issue of SSM to bed once and for all.I’m reasonably sure that he is saying this on the basis of confidence that the plebiscite will support SSM, a confidence now shared by most commentators.
    Thinking of the grandchildren I’m looking after this week I’m hoping that they grow up in a very different world from the one we have at present.
    Even their parents grew up in a world (early 2000s) where the comments made by Fr Tattersall would have been considered way out of line even in most Catholic schools.Though possibly not in Melbourne in those days…

    • Thank you Margaret. I greatly appreciate that.

  15. The only way the absolute insanity of people of the same sex walking down a reprobate church aisle shall come to pass is the same way Islam is holding the West hostage- “homophobia” and “islamaphobia”: these are socially engineered concepts designed to break the back of a society that, by turning away from the One True God, have no objective morals, and nothing to stand on.

    Stand on the Rock of Life – Jesus Christ. If this homosexual agenda – this invasion of perverse and flawed morals – gets us to question why our society has been such a good society – why we survived for so long without video surveillance and other security measures – in short, why were people of higher moral character all around when Christianity was strong – and if souls are saved because of this reflection and questioning, then this is a silver lining to a very dark cloud.

    • Ash

      With the general decline of absolute morals there will be an increasing acceptance of immorality as in the times of Judges. It’s not hard to see the ultimate goal of atheists and humanists; this time there will not be a correction of our future Sodom and Gomorrah. We will have to just wait for the day of judgement.

  16. Something Nick may enjoy since he likes lists. No idea what I am trying to prove – but then, I have no idea what Nick is trying to prove.

    1979 December 16 Second Wilson Church, Chester, South Carolina, a meeting place for civil rights activists, is gutted by fire.
    1993 April 5 Rocky Point Missionary Baptist Church in Pike County, Mississippi, was set on fire by three teenagers who served time.[9]
    1995 January 13 Johnson Grove Baptist Church, Bells, Tennessee, is burned.
    1995 January 13 Macedonia Baptist Church, Denmark, Tennessee, is burned.
    1995 January 31 Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Hardeman County, Tennessee, is burned.
    1995 June 21 Outside of Manning, South Carolina, four men affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan worked together to burn down Macedonia Baptist Church and Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church, both majority black churches. Arrests made. In 1998, Grand Dragon Horace King and four other Klansmen to pay $37.8 million for their roles in a conspiracy to burn Macedonia Baptist Church.[10][11]
    1995 August 15 St. John Baptist Church, Lexington County, South Carolina, is burned. Arrest made.
    1995 October 31 Mount Pisgah Baptist Church, Raeford, North Carolina, is burned.
    1995 December 22 Mount Zion Baptist Church, Boligee, Alabama, is burned.
    1995 December 30 Salem Baptist Church, Gibson County, Tennessee, is burned.
    1996 January 6 Ohovah African Methodist Episcopal Church, Orrum, North Carolina, is burned. Arrest made.
    1996 January 8 Inner City Church, Knoxville, Tennessee, is burned.
    1996 January 11 Little Zion Baptist Church and Mount Zoar Baptist Church, Green County, Alabama, are burned.
    1996 February 1 Cypress Grove Baptist Church, St. Paul’s Free Baptist Church, and Thomas Chapel Benevolent Society, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are all burned.
    1996 February 1 Sweet Home Baptist Church, Baker, Louisiana, is burned.
    1996 February 21 Glorious Church of God in Christ, Richmond, Virginia, is burned.
    1996 February 28 New Liberty Baptist Church, Tyler, Alabama, is burned.. Arrest made.
    1996 March 5 St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church, Hatley, Mississippi, is burned.
    1996 March 20 New Mount Zion Baptist Church, Ruleville, Mississippi, is burned.
    1996 March 27 Gay’s Hill Baptist Church, Millen, Georgia, is burned.
    1996 March 30 El Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, Satartia, Mississippi, is burned. Arrest made.
    1996 April 11 St. Charles Baptist Church, Paincourtville, Louisiana, is burned.
    1996 April 13 Rosemary Baptist Church, Barnwell, South Carolina, is burned.
    1996 April 26 Effingham Baptist Church, Effingham, South Carolina, is burned.
    1996 May 14 Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, Tigrett, Tennessee, is burned.
    1996 May 23 Mount Tabor Baptist Church, Cerro Gordo, North Carolina, is burned.
    1996 May 24 Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, Lumberton, North Carolina, is burned.
    1996 June 3 Rising Star Baptist Church, Greensboro, Alabama, is burned.
    1996 June 7 Matthews Murkland Presbyterian Church sanctuary, Charlotte, North Carolina, is burned.. Arrest made.
    1996 June 9 New Light House of Prayer and The Church of the Living God, Greenville, Texas, are burned.
    1996 June 12 Evangelist Temple, Marianna, Florida, is burned.
    1996 June 13 First Missionary Baptist Church, Enid, Oklahoma, is burned.. Arrest made.
    1996 June 17 Hills Chapel Baptist Church, Rocky Point, North Carolina, is burned.
    1996 June 17 Mount Pleasant Missionary Baptist Church and Central Grove Missionary Baptist Church, Kossuth, Mississippi, are burned.
    1996 June 20 Immanuel Christian Fellowship, Portland, Oregon, is burned.
    1996 June 24 New Birth Temple Church, Shreveport, Louisiana, is burned.
    21st Century[edit]
    2006 July 11 A cross is burned outside a predominantly black church in Richmond, Virginia[12]
    2008 November 5 Macedonia Church of God in Christ, Springfield, Massachusetts, is burned out. Arrest made.[13]
    2010 In Crane, Texas, Faith in Christ Church is vandalized and firebombed by a man attempting to gain entry into the Aryan Brotherhood. Arrest made.[14]
    2014 Flood Christian Church in Ferguson, Mo was burned by arsonists. Flood Christian is where Michael Brown Sr. was baptized. Some attribute it to the protests which burned several other buildings that night, while others claim the building was far from where protests took place and was more likely retaliatory for the comments its pastor had made regarding the release of the officer who had shot Michael Brown Jr.[15]
    2015 June 17 Charleston church shooting. At Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, nine African Americans are shot and killed and a tenth shot and survived in a mass shooting. Arrest made.
    2015 June 22 At College Hill Seventh Day Adventist, in Knoxville, Tennessee, a small fire is set, resulting in minimal damage to the church structure and destruction of the church van. The act was not classified as a hate crime.[16]
    2015 June 23 God’s Power Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia, is “gutted” by a fire. The fire was ruled arson.[17][18]
    2015 June 24 At Briar Creek Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, an unknown arsonist starts a three-alarm fire, causing more than $250,000 in damages.[19]

    • I was trying to prove that a plebiscite is a bad idea because of the homophobic incidents it will inspire.

      • Ash

        The plebiscite cannot be proven to be a bad idea, because it hasn’t happened yet.
        When it does happen, there will be debate, thought and some emotions flying, as it is with most other important social issues.
        The probability that there will be some isolated cases of reprehensible violence over the matter, which the police can take care of, is no valid reason to invalidate a collective democratic vote on what marriage should be socially defined as.

        • “The probability that there will be some isolated cases of reprehensible violence over the matter, which the police can take care of, is no valid reason to invalidate a collective democratic vote on what marriage should be socially defined as.”

          You’re willing to accept violence? Did you sleep through all of June 12?

          • Ash

            Nick, I have a busy life. I work to support a family. I cannot prioritise my time on what violence occurs where, when and in what fashion. So forgive me for ‘sleeping’ through June 12. I do not know how you come to the conclusion, other than you heard what you wanted to hear, that I ‘accept’ violence. Violence around the world happens whether I accept it or not. Prevention is sure better than cure, but there is no way to prevent all crimes just as there is no way to prevent all heart attacks and cancers.

          • But we shouldn’t deliberately make it worse.

  17. Ash

    Not speaking on behalf of AJ; I think it’s important to make a distinction about permitting an immoral activity and condoning an immoral activity. It is also important to separate church and state for the respect of secular society. So to consider an activity as illegal from a secular point of view, it should be proven to cause an adverse effect on society to the point where it is unacceptable at a population level to continue permitting it.

    Population studies suggest that despite 2% of U.S. population being gay, they account for 61% of HIV infection: “Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009).” (Center for Disease Control,

    “A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.” (

    25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: “Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently.” (The Body,

    The financial impact of these figures is that it costs the US government $12.1 Billion annually: “Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed.” (

    There is a $1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: “June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia–HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion.” (

    Whilst these are old figures, they reflect similar effects in Australia. By 31 December 2014, 90% of the estimated 27,150 people with HIV in Australia were men.

    In 2014:
    70% of HIV diagnoses were among men who have sex with men
    5% were among men who have sex with men who also inject drugs
    19% of transmissions were attributed to heterosexual sex, and
    3% of transmissions were attributed to injecting drug use.

    The cost of treatment for HIV is over $9,000 per patient.

    I am personally not saying homosexuality should be made illegal; I don’t think that is helpful. We should still recognise, however, that HIV treatment alone for Australian MSM with HIV costs the Australian taxpayer PER YEAR well over the cost of the plebiscite. Labor cannot pretend to be the most penny-conscious people and yet they are happy to use the cost as an argument against the plebiscite.

    • For the gazillionth time, anal sex =/= homosexuality.

      • Ash

        Straw man argument, Nick.
        I personally don’t care what MSM call themselves. Whether they are homosexual, bisexual or pansexual. The data indicates that the homosexual act between men is costing these governments a lot of money. If there is a study to quantify how many MSM call themselves gay, it would useless and not change the facts anyway.

    • One of the saddest things to come out of this is a reluctance to face the reality of HIV/AIDS and syphilis and other STD’s that are rife in gay communities. Sure, the bowling ball ads were confronting, but how many lives did they potentially save? I have been horrified by the current push to have governments supply and market anti-viral medicines as a kind of miraculous drug to sweep the reality under the carpet. I cannot imagine the latent fear of disease that surely accompanies a sexually active lifestyle with multiple encounters. And I can empathise that people under this burden might lash out for any cause that makes them feel better about what it is they do. If you are angry about LGBT you are really angry at yourself, for not being the person you were created to be. Do not fear – there is hope, and for ALL of us, no mattter where we have come from, what race we are, how rich or how poor: Jesus Christ is real, He is the Son of God and He LOVES you and longs for you to surrender to Him.

      You don’t need to carry the burdens of a faceless movement which has no basis in Truth, no Future and a past worth forgetting.

      • I’ve never denied any of that. I’m just saying that the concern is anal sex, not homosexuality.

  18. Ash

    The audacity of duplicity…

  19. Ash is arguing “yeah, gay people are going to get bashed, but that’s the price we have to pay.” When it comes to a plebiscite, Ash is saying that violence against gay people is acceptable.

    • Ash

      Utter nonsense Nick. I never said that; do not feebly put words in my mouth. I never condone violence of any kind. But what on earth can prevent all acts of violence from occurring? Nothing but the end of the world as we know it. The plebiscite will not form any more of a reason to incite violence against the LGBT community than the result of a conscience vote on SSM in parliament. It is baseless to keep clambering the same rhetoric based on incidents your blog reports on, which clearly and unwaveringly taints your view on any viewpoint opposing homosexuality or SSM.

      • We can’t prevent all acts of violence, but why knowingly make it worse?

        And you are arguing that. Not condoning doesn’t preclude accepting.

  20. Ash

    The plebiscite will not make anything worse.

    • Yes it will, because it gets all of society fired up, instead of just politicians. That means more people who are angry and prone to violence against their opponents.

  21. Ash

    In case you miss the above reply Nick, I will be refraining from responding to you in future for your continued personal insults. Goodbye.

    • Fine by me (fool). 🙂

  22. Nick and in the media many others, have jumped onto the $160M cost of the plebiscite. But people in glass houses should not throw stones. Before complaining about $160M to determine if the community approve of gay marriage, the gay lobby might remember that they impose about double that amount year on year upon the rest of the community. That is the cost of HIV drugs and other medical treatment required to support their lifestyle. Homosexuality would have horrible health consequences without that subsidy, which is paid by the rest of the community without complaining.

    Suppose that a drug combination costing $10,000 per year to treat a person were available to prevent smoking related diseases. Wouldn’t it be preposterous to argue that that should be available at government expense to everyone who enjoyed smoking? But there are calls for a combination of antiviral drugs called “PrEP” to be made available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for all gay men because it would make them immune to becoming HIV positive, at about that cost. According to the article in The Age of July 12th it is likely to be “prejudice” that will keep it off the benefits scheme. There would be at least 100,000 people, mostly gay men who would then be able to practise their forms of sex care free, at a cost of around a billion dollars a year. $160M is peanuts relative to what the gay community considers it is entitled to in support of its lifestyle.

    • I’m not sure why one cost justifies another cost. Also remember that the vast majority of gay people do not have HIV. Also remember that it’s in a society’s interests to control diseases, even though it does cost money.

    • David,
      The NHS – England has refused to fund PReP.

      • Janine,

        It seems Australia hasn’t refused to fund Prep. It’ll cost about $8,000,000 per year in NSW alone.
        Although the Truvada drug costs about $10,000 per person per year, so the cost could be $40,000,000 per year in NSW alone.

  23. So we’re clear: It’s not disrespectful to call someone a fool. I have respect for foolish people, just not malicious people like Peter.

  24. I have been doing some research to try to understand the seemingly inconsistent motivations of socialist progressives on the left who support both same sex marriage for the gay community and also support increasing the number of muslims coming into the West from countries that persecute and kill homosexuals. I have also wondered why muslim bakers are not prosecuted for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes while christians bakers are targeted. I then realised that socialist progressives on the left hate Christianity. The religion of Islam has also had a long history of conflict with christians. Christian hating seems to be something many on the left have in common. I then read about the Frankfurt School which was a Marxist think tank. Basically a group of Marxist academics devised a way to destroy and corrupt Western nations from the inside out. Part of their plan involved promoting sexual deviance, exposing children in schools to homosexuality, encouraging greater immigration leading to cultural and racial divides and tensions and of course destroying Christianity. Many of those who were part of this think tank helped in burning down Christian churches in Russia before moving to Germany. This socialist political movement could only succeed when an individual believed that his or her actions are determined by “not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community” in a world “that has been abandoned by God”. The intellectuals who developed this political movement then emigrated to America and became professors at universities (I now understand why universities are so politically correct and suppress intellectual diversity and free speech). Now when I read the news or a comment that opposes freedoms, morality, Christianity etc. I can make sense of what is actually happening and why. Christianity and the family unit are the last defences against a self-destructive socialist agenda that will ironically negatively affect both those who support and oppose it. Penny Wong is showing her true colours as a socialist by trying to deny individual citizens their right to have a say in a plebiscite. Gagging people with political correctness does not lead to a more enlightened society but instead leads us to a more restrictive and controlling all powerful government. Long live freedom, long live individual endeavour and responsibility and long live the traditional family!

    • Ash

      The dislike of Christianity is multifaceted. There is the history of atrocities committed by those who called themselves Christians, crusades and killings. History is not kind, but then it never was before Christ, which is documented in detail in the OT. Then there is the more modern day altar boy indiscretions committed by parishioners. Now it is the view that Christianity is evil because it opposes the liberties of open marriage and questions sin. Jesus endured much the same castigation himself, so we should not be surprised when this is happening.

      Same sex marriage undermines the sacred institution between a man and a woman, and this video from 2013 singling out Ryan Anderson on a leftist TV programme highlights the typical tactics the same sex proponents use to corner and jeer at marriage defenders:

      First garnering the sympathetic vote from the audience, SSM advocates then ridicule those supportive of traditional marriage further polarising the audience with emotional backing. It is has has been quite an unfair media portrayal of both sides of the argument.

  25. Good blog.
    Hate speech is already outlawed. The plebiscite will give everyone an equal freedom of expression. Avoiding a public vote because of personal sensitivities is not democratic.
    It is emotional blackmail. And that is why there might be an emotional opposition. That’s fair.
    Propaganda from Penny or anyone else will be called out for what it is. – Fear mongering.

    And what would happen if SSM is arbitrarily enacted against the people’s common sense or wishes?
    Peace for all humankind??! … I doubt it.

    If the result of the plebiscite is a resounding yes vote to changing marriage laws, we will have to adjust our view of the Australian culture.
    If it is decided by parliament, it won’t be so acceptable to the people.
    There would only be more anger for not being given a voice or a choice. We need to think ahead, not give in to emotional blackmail or marxist ideology.

  26. Something is wrong when a person refuses to acknowledge the difference between boy and girl, man and woman.
    It’s like they’ve been hypnotised into believing that gender is optional.
    There is also a difference between those who have been duped by political correctness, and those of us who still know how sex works.
    It’s not like we were born yesterday, we already know all about sex. These SSM proponets would like to teach our grandmothers how to suck eggs.

    We already know!

    Sex and marriage is not a new thing that can be redefined on a whim. – Don’t they teach biology in school anymore!
    Religion and politics should be kept separate.
    And so should sex and politics.

    • Mikel,
      I had to laugh when I saw the American sex education program – They teach anal and oral sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse. They have most likely had to change the biology textbooks to accommodate this new mind-set – anus and mouth have new functions as they’re sexual organs. Scientific research will have to normalise faecal incontinence and green vaginal discharge after practicing anal and vaginal sexual intercourse. American public health had produced a visual warning against spreading sexually transmitted diseases with a rainbow colours on the anus, mouth and vaginal areas. However, they only had pictures of two guys and a man and woman. They forgot to include a lesbian couple or they thought lesbian relationships aren’t sexual. There are some guys whom believe it is normal to place their penis in an anus and a mouth because they believe that ejaculation in this area of the body will create a baby??? Parents and teachers aren’t allowed to tell these guys that vaginal sexual intercourse is the only way that they can create a baby because they don’t have a right to tell them the truth. They educate children that the meaning and purpose of sex is to have an abortion because it is legal and it is their right to end the life of an unwanted neonate. Plan Parenthood in America hasn’t wanted children understand sex because it has depended on making money form abortions by selling aborted neonates for body parts or research etc. In America, they don’t believe girls/women and boys/men are different and this is the reason they want to let boys/men go into the girls bathrooms and change rooms. The government believes that girls/women need to spend more time waiting to use the bathroom. The reason governments want two men to have a baby is so the community is unable to tell if a man is using this baby for sexual pleasure. The Age recently reported on a gay couple using a baby for sexual pleasure. It appears that the western world education system doesn’t want to teach children the truth about sex education as this goes against the mind-set of LGBTIAQ people. The American sex education is so confusing that I couldn’t tell the difference between the truth and the lies. In New York, people can be sued if you don’t call people by the right Mr or Mrs or Mx etc. Religion has heaps to say about people’s sexual relationships, and people’s religion affects all areas of their life including voting in an election, marriage and sex education.

      There are Aboriginal children whom don’t have an Australian birth certificate, but it would be ridiculous if anyone would claim they’re not Australian citizens and would try to have them deported. Marriage between a man and woman has been a God given right, which is the same as being a parent. People have never needed a parental licence or certificate to be a parent. A “One Flesh” union between a man and woman has never needed a married licence or certificate to be called married. I don’t have a marriage certificate from the State of NSW, but I am married according to God, the church community, my family and friends. Penny Wong claimed she doesn’t have a marriage certificate so she isn’t married. It is obvious that Penny Wong and I can never have the same type of marriage. Penny Wong could get a marriage certificate if Australians accepted a Humanist “Marriage Equality,” but I wouldn’t be identifying with this marriage as I don’t have a state marriage certificate. Same-sex couples can never have a true, traditional marriage because they don’t fit God’s design of marriage – a life-long, exclusive sexual union between man and woman for the purpose of creating biological children. Same-sex couples could have a legal contract like a business partnership, but then this doesn’t need to be monogamous, exclusive nor life-long. There is no Biblical verses requiring same-sex couples to commit in a sexual relationship. I will never be supporting any same-sex couple to be in a sexual union with each other either before or after a marriage. Children don’t want to maintain a long-term relationship with a person whom isn’t their biological parent, relative or friend. I had an Aunty who wasn’t related to me and I haven’t seen her since primary school. The children of anonymous sperm donations complained about the injustice of being denied their right to know their sperm donor and it will be the children of same-sex couples whom will reject them for their behaviours and practices.

      It is going to get hard for common sense, free speech and religious freedom to exist in a society which only accepts political correctness, a nanny state of government demanding control and order over every aspect of people’s personal and professional life. This Blog will become a life-line to keep our sanity as the demands of the LGBTIAQ lobby dictators will want all Australians to believe in their fantasy Disneyland “Marriage Equality.” I can see the reason behind legalising drugs because the ordinary Australia will need to be high on drugs to cope with the Alice and Wonderland experience of LGBTIAQ.

      • lol at your last sentence.
        So true though.
        I get what you mean by living in a fantasy. People are inventing their own identities, just like those video games that allows a player to choose an avatar that represents them and can be anything they desire.
        They get so involved in the game, they forget the reality.
        Their virtual reality is preferable to the actual reality.

        This isn’t a game.

        • Mikel,
          Thanks for your comments.

    • Today, The Age reported a study on family life in Australia conducted by Melbourne University. The evidence from this research showed that men and women are predominately following gender roles which is very different from Sweden. Over 60% of married couples are following a traditional marriage life – husband providing and protecting his family, whilst a wife gives birth and raises their children and they may do some part-time work. The Australian government hasn’t convinced the majority of women to forget their important role of being a mother and for them to hand their children over to the state so it can indoctrinate them with their beliefs, values, ideas and behaviours. This study highlights that gender is important as it is the women whom predominately decides when they will have children and their partner’s income does influence this decision. This research investigated the links between marriage, children, child-care, work-life and home ownership. The Humanist “Marriage Equality” could easily be rejected in Australia because Australian couples are predominately continuing to practice traditional gender roles. In the USA, governments have decided that women can be forced to serve in the front-line of war because they can’t discriminate against gender. I am glad to live in a country which still believes a mother should be with her children and should not be forced into being separated from them. I am thankful that there are both men and women whom have chosen to defend our country.

  27. The Humanist “Marriage Equality” has been accepted by the Supreme court of America which has made marriage to only mean a legal contract. Therefore, a guy is fighting in 3 courts for his Human right to marry his Lap Top computer. This guy is obviously in love with his computer, and since “love is love” there is no reason to deny this guy his Disney fantasy marriage like same-sex couples. Remember in Disneyland it is the place that “all your dreams can come true. This guy needs to get a blessing from the Anglican or Lutheran church as this will make it a moral act. The American people can’t deny a single guy the opportunity to marry the object that he desires. There are single people that don’t want to get married to another person, but want their Human right to marry an object. His Lap Top computer has nothing to do with children or a sexual union, and he will be faithful and have a life-time commitment to his computer. The Bible doesn’t say anything against marrying a computer so it can’t be wrong according the Humanist “Marriage Equality.”

Leave a comment