In a gutsy move, Sky News anchor and Daily Telegraph columnist Caroline Marcus has penned an article unapologetically denouncing the shady tactics and thought policing of the same-sex marriage brigade. While clearly stating she is in favour of allowing LGBT couples to tie the knot, Marcus voices the frustration ordinary Australians have with the ideological bloodbath the ‘yes’ camp has become. She rightfully asserts the cat-calling, fear-mongering, and emotional blackmail spewing from the left will drive many of those, like Marcus, voting ‘yes’ straight into the ‘no’ corner. The piece is eloquent, diplomatic, and above all, honest; it’s the article the general public has been waiting for.
Needless to say, the left has engaged in the usual hand flapping; twisting the author’s words, and bringing out all the standard insults from the ‘leftie labels’ catalogue. ABC’s Lateline host Emma Alberici, who received a serve in the article for her “hysterical hyperbole” around the issue, has asserted on Twitter that Marcus will vote no “to prove a point”. Fellow Sky News Reporter Peter van Onselen has joined in, tweeting, “So you’d vote against your conscience re SSM to deny rights to loving couples just to spite pro SSM advocates? Seriously? Wow.”
These comments, along with the brigade of leftist Twitter trolls squawking in their wake, are, of course, a complete bastardisation of the article’s message. Caroline Marcus has simply pointed out what mainstream Australians already know; that the same-sex marriage push has become less about love and more about retribution. See, according to the latest set of rules-for-base-morality laid out by the left, it’s no longer enough to just announce you are pro-same sex marriage. You must vehemently campaign for the cause, on social media and otherwise. If not, you will be badgered until you comply, or risk having the very core of your moral being called into question. It’s also not enough to support same-sex marriage, but believe a plebiscite is a fair option for those who oppose it to have their say. The very act of simply not condemning the plebiscite, let alone openly advocating for one, is now classed by the left as an act of rank homophobia.
As for even hinting you do not support same-sex marriage; God help you. The consequence for this thought crime is to be ostracised, shunned, denigrated, and labelled the worst kind of bigot. You will not only be called homophobic; that’s the tip of the iceberg. You’ll be branded a neo-Nazi, white-hetero-supremacist, uneducated, ignorant, unenlightened, backwards, evil, stupid, and most ironically, intolerant. Regardless of the fact it is the ‘yes’ camp that is, given this kind of behaviour, showing the most intolerance towards what is, essentially, a simple difference of opinion.
So why this paranoia about a plebiscite? The crux of the argument against the postal vote is that allowing any hint of the argument for traditional marriage to poke through will amount to a violent hate campaign. Bill Shorten, Penny Wong, and same-sex marriage activists insist it will bring unprecedented vitriol into the public arena, and immeasurable suffering on the LGBT community. Who are apparently, according to the heterosexual closet-bigots on the left, too vulnerable and neurotic to handle a civil debate (regardless of their record of stoic resilience in their historic fight for recognition)?
For the record, I, like Marcus, fully support same-sex marriage. However, I know about the ‘no’ camp to realise their argument is (aside from a few noisy swamp-dwelling extremists in Facebook comment sections) fairly basic. Those voting ‘no’ are perfectly happy for LGBT couples to have, by law, the same privileges and protections as heterosexuals. It is not about a denial of rights.
Instead, traditionalists believe the word “marriage” should be reserved for a male-female pairing, for the simple fact this institution has been, for thousands of years, across every culture and religion, a union between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. That’s it. No hatred, no homophobia; it’s simply about the word. Such an argument can be easily debated in the public sphere in a civil, diplomatic manner. It is not a campaign of bigotry. This is a battle that can be fought, and won, by same-sex marriage advocates, through the reasonable exchange of ideas. Not emotional blackmail and thuggery.
But you won’t ever hear the traditionalist argument outlined objectively in the public sphere. All that can be heard, as Caroline Marcus so rightfully pointed out, is the hysterical rhetoric of people who are so terrified of losing they will do anything to not only silence the opposing side but eradicate it completely. The extremists in the same-sex marriage campaign actively attempt to intimidate those on the fence into voting yes, and in the case of the ‘no’ camp, to shut the hell up. And being forced to shut the hell up is not something the general populace takes kindly to.
As Marcus points out, the whole thing is eerily reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” disaster of a campaign. The Democrats not only neglected but pointedly ridiculed and demonised America’s white, largely Christian working class. Traditional values were portrayed as somehow outdated or wrong. White, heterosexual men were ruthlessly chastised for being born with the original sin of being, well, white and male. Anti-white racism was not only accepted but encouraged. And as such, an entire voter base was dismissed as unworthy and deficient. The result? Droves of discontented, voiceless people, furious at this treatment, who would have voted for Mickey Mouse rather than Hillary Clinton.
In Australia, the left is applying the same dirty tactics to the same-sex marriage push. However, vilifying and attempting to gag your opposition is handing over the victory (see: Brexit and Donald Trump). While 63 percent of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage, this is not a staggeringly large majority. The last thing the ‘yes’ camp needs is to drive people away with hateful, Clintonesque rhetoric. Especially as 59 percent of the population is, in fact, in favour of a national vote. So lay off Caroline Marcus. She is correct in her assumptions. I want same-sex marriage legalised, but it is in danger of not happening if its advocates continue to relentlessly refuse to play fair.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.