The high price of holding the line on marriage

‘No consequences’ for anyone else is the refrain of those pushing for a new definition of marriage.

Of course this noble idea unravelled long ago in Europe and the United States and we demonstrated this in our submissions to the various Parliamentary inquiries.

But it is now unravelling in Australia, even though we remain in step with the overwhelming majority of nations which have said no to redefining marriage.

A well respected volunteer religious instructor in Melbourne, Karen Dobby, whose school praised her as someone of “the utmost integrity”, has been chased from her role by people who noticed she supported man-woman marriage on a private website. See story.

At the weekend, Joe Bullock, a former union official who supports man-woman marriage and human rights for the unborn, was elected to the Senate for Labor in the Western Australian by-election.

In the week leading up to the vote, Bullock was demonised in large part because of his “ultra conservative” views.

It should be natural for people who support marriage to be members of Parliament and members of the major parties.

But Bullock’s treatment would cause some to consider whether holding such a view is politically viable.

The latest case out of America is further cause for concern.

The Chief Executive Officer of web browser Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced from his job last week because in 2008 he donated $1000 to the successful referendum campaign in California to uphold marriage.

In an undemocratic move that belongs in “the only in America” file, the courts overturned the peoples’ vote in favour of marriage.

The same-sex political agenda has driven litigation in the US for years and groups like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Becket Fund have been established to take on the myriad of cases of people being persecuted by this and other ideological agendas.

The ADF recently released a video about a Washington State florist who is being sued by the Attorney General and a same-sex couple because she declined to provide flowers to the same-sex couple’s wedding.

It is worth taking seven minutes to watch Barronelle Stutzman’s story.

Since the High Court’s ruling last December overriding the ACT’s same-sex marriage laws, the issue remains blocked by the federal parliament where those seeking to redefine marriage do not have the numbers to change the law. The same-sex lobby is working hard through a relentless process of attrition to change this.

We’ve not even touched on the consequences for children of changing marriage, but I hope you can see that this is an agenda that, if allowed to pass, will change everything we know about freedom.

There is no discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples.

But changing the definition of marriage sets us up for litigation, unnecessary division and intolerance.

No one should be losing their job because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

(From article by Lyle Shelton originally posted at ACL website 10/4)

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

Comments are closed.