SSM Common Sense.

[Rorschach]

This well written article by Tony Abbott.
Well said Tony.

They just won't get it though and those of the Prog Left using the Useful Idiots to push this society changing agenda don't care.

Tony Abbott on why same sex marriage would fundamentally change society
Tony Abbott

Like most, I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay. They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn't mean that we can't continue to reserve the term "marriage" for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.

Like you, I want a country where everyone gets a fair go and where no one is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, political opinion or sexuality. We all want people to be appreciated for their achievements and for the quality of their character; not pigeon-holed and dismissed on the basis of prejudice.

That, in fact, is the Australia we've had for years. It's a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common. Already, indeed, same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.

To demand "marriage equality", therefore, is quite misleading. Same sex couples already have that. This debate is about changing marriage, not extending it. And if you change marriage, you change society; because marriage is the basis of family; and family is the foundation of community.

Supporters of same sex marriage say they are concerned about the bigotry and intolerance that will be whipped up by the plebiscite now going ahead. So far, it's the supporters of change, not the opponents, who've been responsible for bullying and hate speech.

The Archbishop of Hobart has been dragged before a tribunal for defending Christian teaching. Coopers Brewery was bullied into withdrawing support for the Bible Society after sponsoring a debate about marriage. A Father's Day ad was banned for being "political". A doctor who went public with her concerns about the consequences of same sex marriage copped a GetUp! petition to have her struck off. There's been fake news about non-existent homophobic posters and a homophobic ram raid that never happened.

"Love might be love" but it's striking how little love the supporters of same sex marriage are showing for anyone who disagrees with them. It's paradoxical how respect has flown out the window in the fight for yet more respect. It's hard to see, at least from the tenor of the campaign to bring it in, how we would be a more decent society with same sex marriage than without it.

At one level, the same sex marriage debate is of vastly less relevance than most people's daily struggle to pay their bills, to improve their lives and that of their families, and to try to get on with their neighbours and workmates. But at another level, almost nothing is more important than the values that we cherish and the principles on which our society is based.

We shouldn't lightly change what's been the foundation of our society for generations; and, if we do, it should only be after the most careful weighing of all the consequences. Yet if the polls are to be believed, we are about to discard the concept of marriage that has stood since time immemorial in favour of a new concept that would have been scornfully rejected even by gay people just a generation ago.

This week, an anti-same sex marriage gay activist posed the question: "How are women going to recognise lesbianism as an alternative to heterosexuality if they don't see us protesting against institutions that have been harmful to us: like marriage, prostitution and the nuclear family?"

I'm sure that some gay activists really believe that they are trying to promote stable, long-term relationships by extending marriage to same sex couples; but others clearly want to subvert marriage. And the gay people demanding to be married don't want their relationships to change; they just want them to be accorded a new status.

It's said that there should be absolutely no difference, even in terminology, between relationships because "love is love". Yet there are many different types of love. No one is saying that one type of loving relationship is better than another, just that they can be different. By all means, let's find a way to solemnise what is intended to be a sacrificial love between two people of the same sex; but it remains a different love even though it's not a lesser one.

At one level, insisting upon any particular definition of marriage may seem like pedantry. At another level, though, it's important to maintain cultural and intellectual integrity. A man is not a woman just because he wants to be, and a same sex relationship should not be able to become a marriage just because activists demand it.

All the overseas evidence shows that allowing "any two persons" to marry brings many other changes in its wake. In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. In America, a baker has been prosecuted for refusing to put a slogan on a wedding cake.

This week in Quarterly Essay, a "safe schools" supporter, Benjamin Law, said that "it might be stating the obvious but same sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia" – prompting the equally obvious question: how can parents keep gender fluidity programmes out of schools here in Australia when gender fluidity has entered the Marriage Act? If the advocates for same sex marriage can't demonstrate how freedom of speech, freedom of religion and parental choice will be protected in their brave new world, they're asking voters to sign a blank cheque.

Australians have never liked being pushed around or hoodwinked. When big businesses from Uber, to Subway, to the makers of Magnum ice cream are virtue signalling on same sex marriage, it's time to say that political correctness has got completely out of hand and to vote "no" to stop it in its tracks.

Tony Abbott is the federal member for Warringah and a former Australian prime minister.

[Neferti]

Thanks Rorschach. Good on you Tony Abbott!

[Rorschach]

Yep, gotta give it to Tony, when he's right, he's right.
And he is right about this

[Super Nova]

Thanks roach, now I am up to speed.

[Rorschach]

de nada...

[762NATO]

What is the recognised definition of the term "marriage "

[Rorschach]

According to the Australian Marriage Act it is currently.

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Most dictionary definitions these days have been PC'd to account for those Western countries that now have SSM. But it would have been similar. The US dictionaries state formally between a Man and a Woman

here is a typical example of what Dictionaries have to state these days.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/marriage

[Rorschach]

Deception on freedom of religion key to SSM Yes case
The Australian
12:00AM September 13, 2017
Paul Kelly

With the Yes case positioned to win the postal plebiscite, it is more important than ever the misleading and false claims of its advocates — that there is no religious issue at stake — be confronted and the ramifications put on the table.

These claims are made by senior Coalition and Labor politicians. Indeed, it seems they think rejection of the religious argument is fundamental to the success of their campaign. This is alarming because it implies the Yes case depends on persuading the public of a false proposition.

The government and parliament, despite years of emotional debate, declined to address the wider religious freedom question. The political class engaged instead in a great pretence: that the only such issue concerned the wedding ceremony and protections in the Marriage Act for clergy and celebrants, an extremely narrow view of religious freedom.

Given legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and laws of most religions will be brought into direct conflict over society’s most essential institution, the one certainty is ongoing legal and political trench warfare over the balance between acceptance of the same-sex marriage norm and the scope for freedom of belief and religion.

There is a litany of examples from the overseas experience. Fatuous remarks that “the world hasn’t come to an end” in countries that have legislated same-sex marriage are just that — and designed to deceive.

Having refused to confront the issue the advocates of the Yes case now get agitated and self-righteous when it has become an issue in the plebiscite. This was inevitable. While some aspects of the No case are obnoxious, its warnings about religious freedoms risks are entirely valid. What matters is that the many highly intelligent political champions of the Yes case are trapped: they are selling a shoddy intellectual bill of goods and many of them know it.

The first point is that religious freedom guarantees in this country are inadequate. This was agreed and documented in February’s Senate select committee report. Unlike many Western nations, Australia has no statutory expression of a stand-alone right to religious freedom. There are far greater legal protections in relation to sexual orientation than in relation to religious belief.

This is an anomaly given that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights freedom of religion is an inviolable right. The risk now is our parliament undermining Australia’s commitment to the ICCPR.

Evidence presented to the Senate committee shows that statutory protection of religious belief is weak both in federal law and a number of states. It mainly exists as “exemptions” from anti-discrimination law. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney made the obvious point to the committee that this failed to treat freedom of belief and religion as a fundamental human right. Marriage Alliance said: “We submit that religious freedom is a fundamental human right (and) that framing a debate in terms of exemptions misunderstands this fact.”

There was strong support in submissions for parliament to leg­islate to enshrine religious guarantees as a protected attribute in federal anti-discrimination law. This is the pivotal point. The committee unanimously agreed there was a “need to enhance current protections for religious freedom”. The Human Rights Law Centre said: “Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Committee chairman Liberal David Fawcett warned that “if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal” then such action on religious freedom is essential. What was the reaction of the Turnbull government and Labor to the Senate report?

It varied between disregard and contempt. The reason is apparent — politics. Labor has abandoned any interest in addressing the inadequacy of religious protection laws with its embrace of the LGBTI cause. As for the Coalition, the story is the weakness of its conservative caucus. The deeper point is the churches are vulnerable and the politicians know it.

The lamentable situation was summarised by the University of Sydney’s Patrick Parkinson: “There have been numerous bills introduced into parliament to enact same-sex marriage over the last few years and what has been common to most of them has been a minimalist protection for freedom of conscience.”

The second core conclusion is that this battle over rights will continue after same-sex marriage is legislated. In Denmark the Lutheran Church has had its rights restricted. The Swedish PM has said priests should no more be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples than medical professionals should be exempt from abortion procedures. The Speaker of the British House of Commons says “proper equal marriage” won’t happen until the churches are compelled to obey by law. Australian Greens formally say they want the religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law to be wound back. Many in the ALP left have the same view.

We are being put on notice. You would have to be politically blind to deny the reality (an option many politicians have deliberately chosen). The post-same-sex marriage battle is already under way. This is because while many people genuinely see same-sex marriage as an issue of non-discrimination, this was never its essence. It is an ideological cause seeking fundamental changes in Western society, laws and norms. It will continue apace after the law is changed.

Marriage equality is an ideology and ideologies, by nature, do not settle for compromise victories. As Benjamin Law says in Quarterly Essay: Moral Panic 101: “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.

He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.

The pretence by Yes case politicians that the plebiscite has no consequences for the Safe Schools program treats us like fools. Legislation of same-sex marriage will tilt the scales decisively in this struggle between sexual rights and religious freedom. This legal and cultural change will influence decision-makers everywhere — public servants, corporates, media and educational institutions.

The churches will remain a prime target and the fact their protections are weak makes them highly vulnerable once the assault gains momentum.

The Yes case bases its campaign on human rights but misses the exquisite irony that you cannot cherry-pick human rights and keep your integrity. As Parkinson said, consistency of principle means those who justify their campaign on human rights need to give proper consideration to how rights can be balanced.

That hasn’t happened in Australia, not even remotely. Every sign is Australia will legalise same-sex marriage devoid of any serious attention to religious freedom issues and, as a result, religious protections will be exposed and sacrificed.

The politicians are doing this because they think they can get away with it. They are entitled to that judgment. What they are not entitled to is a gross deception. The assurances they give on religious protection are worthless — their inaction proves that. People, regardless of how it affects their vote, need to know the reality.

[762NATO]

So poofters can't marry in Australia no matter the result of Mals folly. Case closed