Moral and Political Aberration by the US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court mmbers 2015MEDIA RELEASE SATURDAY 27 JUNE 2015

“The US Supreme Court has ushered in a new era of civil discord with its politically activist and morally reckless ruling on homosexual ‘marriage’. We must not let that happen here”, said Dr David van Gend, President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

“The moral dementia of the West is evident when the honourable name of marriage is given to a relationship that can only be consummated by an indecent act.

“This is the third historic act of social self-mutilation by the US Supreme Court, the most recent being the Roe-v Wade decision in 1973 that found a constitutional right for adults to kill their babies in the womb.

“Further back, five judges in 1857 imposed the racist abomination of the Dred Scott decision on all the states of the Union.

“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.

“The court decision stands against the clearly-stated will of the people, where a majority of 61% to 39% (51.5million to 33 million) have voted in ballots in 35 states to keep marriage a man-woman thing.

“The Supreme Court’s slavery decision was eventually repented of and reversed, just as the homosexual ‘marriage’ decision will have to be repented of and reversed – but after how much social damage is done?

“There is a long and exhausting task now, as there was for the anti-slavery forces under Abraham Lincoln, to damn this Supreme Court decision, this poll of the social values of nine US citizens, as a judicial usurpation of politics and bring about its reversal by all legitimate means.

AUSTRALIA IS NOT THE USA

“In Australia, we are different”, Dr van Gend said.

“Here, the High Court has recused itself from any such usurpation of politics: it has ruled that the question of marriage belongs, properly, in the Federal Parliament.

“In the Federal Parliament, a civil-rights balance has already been achieved: same-sex couples are treated exactly the same as as any other couple, since eighty five laws were amended by a bipartisan majority in 2008. There is no unjust discrimination against same-sex couples in Australia.

“If same-sex couples cannot marry, that is because they do not meet nature’s job description for marriage and family: marriage and childbearing is a specifically male-female phenomenon in nature, and no parliament or court has the authority to repeal biology.

“We must not disturb the balance of civil rights we have at present, because if we do, children will be collateral damage,” Dr van Gend said.

“The right to marry carries with it the right to create a family – and that means forcing any child of a same-sex ‘marriage’ to miss out on a mother or a father. That is a fundamental injustice against the child.

“Australia, unlike America, has recent experience of the grief caused to children by laws that break the primal bond between mother, father and child – think of the recent national apology for the policy of forced adoption, or the older policy separating children from their Aboriginal parents. We have learnt the harm such laws can do, and here in Australia we will not bring in another law, same-sex ‘marriage’, that would break the bond between mother, father and child once more – and would, one day, require its own national apology.

“In Australia, same-sex couples are free to live as they choose, but they are not free to choose a motherless or fatherless existence for a little child.

“Nor are they free to impose homosexual values on our children and grandchildren in the school curriculum, which is what laws for same-sex ‘marriage’ have done overseas and would do in Australia too.

“Nor are they free to use anti-discrimination law to silence the conscientious objection of individuals and churches who see homosexual behaviour as wrong and therefore homosexual marriage as immoral. That, too, is happening overseas under laws for same-sex marriage, but it must not happen here.

“Just as Australia rejects America’s right-wing mindset on guns and the death penalty, so we must reject their judges’ left-wing mindset on homosexual ‘marriage’.

“Even if we are the last western country standing we will not abandon future children to a motherless or fatherless future, or sacrifice the sanity of natural marriage on the altar of sexual license”, Dr van Gend concluded.

END

Contact@AustralianMarriage.org

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

9 Responses

  1. I’ve been wondering what the word “marriage” actually means.
    There seems to be a confusion between the original matrimonial marriage, and the senses of the word, from dictionary.com :
    6. any close or intimate association or union : the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
    Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation.
    Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
    7. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
    ———-
    So far I have found the etymology of the English word ‘marry’ is to join with a woman (mari) in matrimony. She will be the mother of the children from the union. Matrimony is derived from mater meaning mother. It is literally impossible for two men or two women to marry regardless of how the state defines it.
    No one seems to care what the word ‘marriage’ actually means, it is being redefined (in some countries), according to emotional (or political) reasons. Since when was marriage an expression of love? Sounds like an appeal to emotion. Love might be included in a verbal vow that people make outside the law, but why should the state have jurisdiction over what love is at all? There is no clause in the Marriage Certificate stipulating you must be in love, is there? The law has no business meddling with marriage after c.10 000 years of human civilization and traditional marriage. When it comes to equal rights there are other terms that can be used such as “de facto” or “civil union” and so on.

    I disagree with the government arbitrarily redefining the word marriage.
    There will always be a differentiation and a neccessary discrimination between legitimate marriage and any other union, in the sense of “an act or instance of discriminating, to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately, or of making a distinction”.
    What right does anyone have to redefine a word and expect everyone else to accept it? Least of all the U.S.

    People seem to be too afraid to discriminate and not willing to differentiate.
    I hear gay people say they want the right to marry even if they don’t actually want to get married. They just want to “feel” included. And when they say it is unfair that they can’t marry, Well, That’s the literal reality of it. You cannot marry a man that will be your wife.
    Australia, don’t become America.

  2. I don’t agree with you.

  3. Don’t forget Buck v. Bell on eugenics and Plessy v Ferguson on segregation

  4. God bless you Dr David for your courage in continuing to witness to the sacredness of marriage. The above article will be linked on the June 29 menu of my website http://www.v2catholic.com which is also trying to resist the “same-sex marriage” juggernaut. See especially my reflection http://v2catholic.com/johnw/2013/2013-06-17same-sex-marriage-two-elephants-in-the-men's-room.htm

  5. I was shocked to hear the decision form the supreme court of America. The last time i was that shocked hearing news form America was the 9-11 terrorist attacks. This is a sad day for the USA.

    Thanks for keeping us informed Dr David

  6. I like Dr David idea and Michael comment: Marriage derive from mari in Italian language that is closer to Latin is even more accentuate, Matrimonio ( Marriage) Madre ( Mother) that also suggest that the Word that said they became one can suggest that motherhood is the result as the unborn is one with the mother and is also the father together. LGBT request for SSM had not basic international human right recognition and the only reason to impose to society they abomination is also the tentative to clear their conscience if they had one, and to influenced the future generation to became sinner like them.

  7. rex

    Well this week has been a dark week indeed. Another week of being bombarded with the gay media empire about how homosexuality is completely normal and to be accepted and celebrated. And now the supreme Court ruling. No Christian should be surprised with this. Jesus said the last days will be like the days of Lot sodom etc and here we are. People everywhere in not even a generation have been swept away in the strong gay torrent. The gays say that you can have an opinion as long as you’re for them. They are the biggest bigots of them all. They intend to destroy the family unit for the sake of their own lusts. They intend to indoctrinate young children and deny them a balanced upbringing of mother and father. Recognition of their unions was not enough. No let’s go the whole way and marry and have kids which they can’t do btw. They can’t help it because they were born this way. How about the people that change sides and become straight? Or the other way around? Were they born gay or straight? What about saying that paedophiles or murderers or rapists or thieves were born that way? Is that a good defence in court? Whatever gay activists do don’t pretend to be Christian because there is nothing in common there. Jesus clearly stated a marriage between a man and a woman. He mentioned sodom and gomorrah. Romans corinthians and jude have clear verses against homosexuality. These supposed Christian churches in america that accept homosexuality have defied God and will have to answer for that. Amen.

  8. I don’t understand. I know straight couples who are unable or unwilling to have children. If the sole reason of marriage between man and woman is to produce children, should the law be changed to not recognise marriage until a child is produced?

    The lost generation was government policy which forcibly removed children from their families. Do you actually think gay marriage will mean gays will be able to take your children away from you, without your consent using the legality of this new law?

    There are many single parents out there. Using your logic are you arguing single parents children should be taken away and fostered into a family with a binding marriage until such a time that that single parent remarries? What if they are to never remarry? Are the children never to live with their birth parent again? If so this sounds more like the stolen generation than gay marriage.

    How about children in the foster system seeking adoption. Is a life in the unstable foster care system more natural than a life with two stable parents, regardless of their gender?

    Please clarify your argument for me, a concerned citizen.

    • admin

      Hi Joseph, Thanks for your question. Not all married couples can have children and some choose not too but they meet the biological criteria for marriage and family (one male and one female). A new lost generation is created by gay couples who consciously choose to deny a child their mother or father. Every child has the right to know and be raised by their biological parents. This isn’t always possible due to death or desertion – but that shouldn’t be where the bar is set. We must fight for the ‘best case scenario’ for children – not ‘near enough is good enough.’

Leave a comment