Here is a class act from NSW Finance Minister Dominic Perottet. Why not drop him a line of thanks at

Mr Speaker – something is very wrong with our political system when a belief held for over 2000 years by a Christian church can now of all a sudden be judged ‘hateful’ by some faceless bureaucrat.

Our right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not incite violence or hatred. Arguing your view on the definition of marriage clearly passes this test. Yet we are now in a situation where the government is seeking to prevent a Church from teaching its own beliefs in its own schools.

Make no mistake – we are rapidly progressing from mere political-correctness to now mobilising the machinery of big government to silence those with different views. Ironically, the people who preach most about tolerance are turning out to be the most intolerant of all.

And sadly it’s our journalists, artists and academics – supposedly the stewards of intellectual liberty – who have become the most active in trying to silence views they do not agree with.
This issue is not about religious freedom.

It’s about freedom itself.

All parties in a debate – whether politicians, think tanks, religious institutions, lobby groups or anyone else – should be able to express their views freely without censure. The state licensing freedom to a particular group is no freedom at all.

Whatever your views on the definition of marriage, we should all be uncomfortable the government now has the power to intimidate, investigate and prosecute you if it finds your views somehow inappropriate.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

8 Responses

  1. The law needs to change. But let’s keep in mind that as absurd as this lawsuit is, the Catholic Church is having its political campaign subsidized by the government, whereas for example the Safe Schools Coalition has been explicitly warned not to campaign for marriage equality. Let’s also keep in mind that a gay couple has been threatened with legal action for having a rainbow flag on their balcony, and that over 100 people signed a petition calling for a ban on rainbow flags in South Australia.

  2. What evidence is there for that claim regarding a rainbow flag. Nonsense.

    The absurd threat of legal action in Tasmania, however, was real and is documented.

    And no-one owns the rainbow flag. The rainbow (like the Eureka flag) has been a symbol given many different meanings – peace, and even war, a warning – or a delight – for shepherds or sailors, and significant in different ways to various peoples of the world including our indigenous. – I for one regret the attempt of the “gay lobby” to highjack it. Human beings did not put it in the sky !

    • You want evidence? Sure. From the Adelaide Advertiser, “Rainbow flag would be banned in SA councils under petition to state Parliament”, October 26, 2015:

      “State Parliament has been urged to ban the flying of rainbow flags as a symbol of gay pride in a petition signed by more than 100 people and delivered by a Liberal backbencher.

      The petition, endorsed by 103 residents of Adelaide and broader SA, calls on the Government to “restrict councils or other organizations (so it’s not just the government) from displaying a rainbow flag or any other design of a rainbow as a symbol of homosexuality”.

      It proposes fines against anyone who defied the order.”

      So yes, it did happen. Your side can’t claim the moral high ground.

      • These silly people speak for themselves. I am not on any “side” – in religion, ethics, or politics – simply one liberal Anglican who believes in marriage as defined in Australian law and as upheld by innumerable people in the past and today (of course not in marriage, for example, when it involves polygamy).

  3. CJG

    “The law needs to change” – these seem to be the words of one of two types of people. The first type is the homosexual person who feels so strongly about this because it is central to his or her being. They feel that changing the marriage law to bring about the imagined “equality” will result in society validating and accepting them. This might actually happen to a large extent but it would take several generations. However, their stance is purely selfish, based on the perceived, (not actual) “needs” of a minority in society, and not based on what is the best for society as a whole. Those of us who oppose changing the marriage law can see that society would be profoundly damaged, perhaps not in the short-term but certainly over several generations.

    The second type of person who would utter those words is the politically active, blind ideologue. They also cannot see things what others can see but are blinded by political doctrines that exist in some activist movements. This person might not be homosexual and is most likely young and idealistic, mistakenly and fervently believing that the absence of marriage for homosexuals is some kind of human rights abuse.

    Then there is a third type of person, although I doubt that Nick belongs to this group. These people belong to a certain group of elitists, posing as intellectuals, who aim to “socially engineer” society in several ways, with homosexual marriage just being one of these ways. Their goal is a dystopian world of easily controlled people in which they and their group dominate even more than they already do. It is no secret that as far back as the 1960’s, and earlier, one of their social engineering goals included the promotion of homosexuality in general. They could see how the success of such a plan would weaken the fabric of society and allow them to rule over us with more ease. They use the first two types of people mentioned above as their tools. This is why we see such support from elements within the political establishment for “marriage equality”. Most or many of those politicians who support changing the marriage law are not even aware where this movement comes from but, as pragmatic and selfish politicians, they align themselves with whoever has financial and political power, or they follow party platforms that have their origins in the plans of the elitists.

    • Why was my last comment removed?

      Anyway, when I said “the law needs to change”, I meant the Tasmanian law.

    • CJG, How would allowing homosexuals to marry profoundly destroy society?

  4. CJG

    Continuing from my post –

    In other words, this movement has its ORIGINS in the ideological aims of a certain group who chose to support the vocal minority of gay rights activists. It is important to realize that and not imagine that it was the reverse, i.e., that a vocal minority in society gained magically such political power.

Leave a comment