On 27 November 2007, the legal hammer fell on Massachusetts’ resident David Parker as he lost his court battle to determine what moral teaching his child would receive at school. It was the culmination of a legal case that began in April 2006 after Parker discovered early the previous year, that the school was teaching his son about homosexual relationships and transgenderism.
In one of the most lawless legal rulings you’ll ever read Parker and, by extension, every parent in Massachusetts was plunged into the Orwellian nightmare that comes when gay marriage has the backing of legal force from the state. After running around looking for any possible justification for his views, Judge Mark Wolf ruled that:
- Now that gay marriage is legal the state had a duty to normalise homosexual relationships.
- The school could use teaching materials and methods to that end.
- The school had no obligation to notify parents when this was happening.
- You cannot ‘opt-out’ your children from such teachings.
In dismissing Parker’s rights, the judge actually asserted (wrongly) the states’ rights.
Move across to London 2017:
Inspectors visiting Vishnitz Girls School in north London last month said the Orthodox school does not give pupils “a full understanding of fundamental British values”, The Telegraph reported. Pupils were not taught about LGBT issues such as “sexual orientation”, which are in breach of equality laws.
“This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles,” inspectors reported.
The list goes on and I think you get the picture. The common thread in all the issues around gay marriage and the promotion of gay issues is the same. They want access to your children and they don’t want you to have any say in the matter. Moreover, they want your taxes to pay for their moral views to be ascendant.
An attack on a school’s right to teach the parents beliefs to the children is actually an attack on the parents themselves. Vishnitz teaches a moral world view because it’s what the parents want and is a large part of the reason for the school’s existence in the first place. This is beyond restricting your ability to teach your children your moral views. It is the insistence of the states’ morals being taught.
David Parker and the Vishnitz parents awoke one day and discovered that the state had become their enemy and that by keeping to their beliefs, they had become an enemy of the state. Herein lies the crux of the matter. The power of legal force is a deadly foe to liberty when it is not exercised for its legitimate purpose, which is to protect persons and property. Once something receives legal backing, it is civil disobedience to oppose it and it is the antithesis of liberty.
The institution of marriage is the oldest institution on earth. It predates religion and government and is the primary bedrock of civilisation. The coming together of men and women to form a union and from that a family is the most natural process to humans and we’ve been engaging in it with gusto forever. Our most ancient and sacred writings have extensive exploration and instruction regarding marriage. It is as natural to the human mind and disposition as rainfall is to the natural world. To believe otherwise is to be on the wrong side of history. The state’s role is merely one of reinforcement of the natural order we adopt. Under the rules of natural law, we delegate to the state certain personal rights and entrust them to our governments such as general law and order. For example, we ‘give up’ our right to defend ourselves with the understanding that the government will do it on our behalf. Nowhere have we ever given up society’s right to define the institution of marriage to the state. As Jennifer Morse wrote in 2012:
“Marriage equality” is a completely artificial creation of the state, which cannot sustain itself. And precisely because it is an unnatural idea that does not spring unbidden to the human mind, the state will end up intervening in every aspect of society that touches upon marriage or gender or parenthood. This is far too much power to grant to the state, far too much social engineering, far too much thought control.
It is a usurped ‘right’, as is the state’s foray into the moral teaching of children. One of the strongest libertarian arguments against gay marriage is the resistance to the extension of state power. It is literally taking upon itself the power to redefine reality and impose a penalty upon those who resist. This is no mere theoretical exercise in what may or may not happen. The evidence from other parts of the world that have given this type of power to their governments is now legion and unequivocal. Without fail, there is always an imposition of state morals into the lives of citizens, an erosion of parental rights and legal penalties for those who will not comply. It is not an argument about what may happen; it is now a catalogue of concrete facts about what will happen. The legal hammer will fall and fall hard on those who dissent.
The issue of gay marriage is running hot in Australia at the moment with the supporters of it now being forced to justify their case through open discussion. This is something they have diligently avoided for years relying instead on slogans rather than factual analysis. In an involuntary act of self-harm to his cause, Dean Smith has actually provided the catalyst for the very thing he hoped to avoid, namely public awareness. Not only awareness of the actual underlying issues but awareness of the tactics being used by its proponents.
Following is a discussion of some of the current arguments and discussion points coming from those who support gay marriage.
The state can give protections for religious freedoms
Firstly, the state has no power to issue exemptions for religious freedoms because we already have them and they exist before and beyond the state. In offering protection the state is assuming for itself a role and powers that do not exist. Remember, what the state giveth, the state taketh away. The concept that the exercise of a natural law freedom can rest with legislators should scare the hell out of anyone.
Secondly, by promising to give these protections the state is admitting that religious freedoms will be under threat and offering society a calming pill in the hope they’ll go to sleep and forget about it. This is akin to telling you to let a tiger live in your backyard, promising you that it’s harmless and then installing an electric fence to keep it at bay. If it’s harmless, Why?
Thirdly, no government can guarantee the actions of future governments or legal challenges through the courts. No sooner had the ink dried on the disastrous gay marriage laws in the UK than the legal challenges started. Similar protections were removed in Ireland after the definition of marriage was changed. If you want a real heart attack, take a look at what’s happened in Canada.
Furthermore, the protection offered to religious institutions only scratch the surface of any protections that would be needed. Protection of speech is essential to a free and open society. Every individual who believes this is wrong will continue to do so and should be free from intrusion to that end.
Gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone else other than those involved
It is true that one person’s relationship doesn’t normally affect another person, however, what one group does with a social institution does affect everyone. The argument takes a leap from a kernel of truth about interpersonal attachments and affection and shoehorns it into a social institution. Once marriage becomes the social plaything of legislators or judges there is no end to what can invented.
There no connection between gay marriage and teachings in schools like the Safe Schools program
In a speech to a Marxist conference in 2016, Roz Ward the architect of the Safe Schools indoctrination program, made the explicit connection herself:
The government funds the Safe Schools Coalition then doesn’t legislate marriage equality, that seems contradictory.
Even though members of the public who are uninformed on the subject may not see the connection (those who have informed themselves see it fully), there is no doubt about the connection in the minds and actions of gay marriage proponents.
While you can bring homosexual teaching into schools without gay marriage being enforced, once it is enforced you’ll never get it out and the state will demolish parental consent as they did in Massachusetts. The marriage amendment bill that Dean Smith, Tim Wilson and co. wanted to introduce into the Australian Parliament this year was replete with references to gender, specifically the removal of it from the law. This should raise alarm bells in anyone’s head as, according to Roz Ward, this is exactly what the Soviets did in the USSR after the glorious revolution. They introduced gender neutral language and removed the fixed age of consent. Apparently, Engles and Marx were right into rainbow flags because the liberation of each depends on the liberation of all for the homosexual cannot win liberation without a general sexual liberation. I seem to remember the Soviet flag being red. Maybe it was rainbow after all.
This is a human right issue
No, it’s not. Some rights are universally instinctive to humans. Chief among these are self-preservation and protection, property, the pursuit of happiness, instruction of one’s own children and freedom of religious expression. Human rights come from a basic understanding and agreement of the fundamentals of existence. The common theme among these is their universal organic genesis within all societies. There has always been a constant struggle for these freedoms against encroaching government overreach.
With gay marriage, it’s common denominator amongst almost all peoples on earth is that virtually no one ever thought of it. It is a contrived right that is being forced onto society and is alien to the general population. It is an activist cause that has gained ground because our culture has stopped believing in itself and its values. A culture, like an individual, that believes in nothing will fall for anything.
Love is love and equality
These are not arguments, they are slogans. Any campaign to change social policy based on emotions as opposed to properly analysed and thought through consequences is trying a bait and switch manoeuvre. These are exactly the same techniques and slogans used elsewhere and rather than enforce the strength of the argument actually detract from it.
It seems that the advocates of equality are very selective on what equalities they decide to campaign on and enforce and who they enforce them on. The overriding common denominator is that it is aimed at children. Children are the most vulnerable members of society, physically, mentally and emotionally. When it comes to equality, the end result is that it gets forced onto children, not that gay people find utopia and indicators to date are that few are actually interested in marriage at all.
This is inevitable, let’s get on with it
No, it is not. This is a common tactic used in any battle as an attempt to psych out the opposition and make them think it’s not worth fighting.
According to Pew Research, there are 25 countries that allow gay marriage. These have only happened in the last few decades with the most influential country among them, the USA rejecting it almost every time a portion of the population had an opportunity to vote on it. It only became law when five judges suddenly discovered a ‘right’ in the constitution that amazingly happened to coincide with their beliefs. Chief Justice Roberts himself said the ruling had nothing to do with the constitution. Most legislators in countries that implement it did so without consulting the people first. There is no ringing endorsement of the population here, just a passiveness and intimidation that stops them from speaking out. The common denominator in most of the countries that have adopted it (or had it imposed on them) is that there is an almost homogeneous left leaning press, entertainment industry and Marxist academia that constantly bully the population into tolerating their view.
Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia didn’t have this on their legislative agenda and China isn’t looking at it too closely either. When Alan Joyce whines about Australia lagging behind 22 other countries in legislating for same-sex marriage, he is betraying a very ‘anglosphere’ world view. He is also lumping some of our greatest trading partners with that criticism since ‘they’re all lagging behind’ as well. It is not inevitable, not even close. The problem we’ve had in Australia is that the public has only heard one side of the debate if they’ve heard any debate at all. If you lock someone up in a room and tell them ‘love is love’ and ‘equality’ five hundred times a day, eventually they’ll be browbeaten into accepting anything you want. I take great encouragement from the reactions of the populations of the Eastern Bloc countries and the USSR after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the nightmare of communism ended. Having been subject to non-stop lies and propaganda for decades, they couldn’t cast it off fast enough. Having had complete control of their minds and everything they saw and heard for generations, the disciples of Marx still failed.
You’re a homophobic bigot
One of the biggest warning bells that should be going off in everyone’s mind is the behaviour of those who are trying to force gay marriage onto the public.
One of the leading faces of the Yes campaign is actually helping the No campaign, Tim Minchin and his friends at the ABC. In his musical effort which you can listen to here, he calls anyone who votes no in the plebiscite ‘bigoted c—s’, and says that Australians are homophobic. Charming.
Activists like Alan Joyce, who use their corporate power to constantly promote their own moral code and justify in under the most flimsy pretence, are also helping the No campaign. His constant badgering of his staff, customers and the public is sickening and a constant reminder to everyone in the country of what they will be subject to if this is ever law.
The staff at their ABC needed to be sent a reminder that all staff must be impartial in their coverage of the gay marriage debate thereby confirming that there was a problem of partiality to begin with.
It seems increasingly obvious to the public that the real intolerance is coming from the activists who are promoting this.
The following is from the Parliament of Australia website:
Since the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) which inserted the current definition of marriage, 22 bills dealing with marriage equality or the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages have been introduced into the federal Parliament. Four bills have come to a vote: three in the Senate (in 2010, 2012 and 2013), and one in the House of Representatives (in 2012). These bills were all defeated at the second reading stage; consequently no bill has been debated by the second chamber. To date, the bills have been introduced by members of parliament representing the Australian Democrats, Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Australia and by Independents.
There is simply no answer the Yes campaign will accept other than their vision. 22 times the Parliament has said no and yet the pressure tactics come in unrelenting waves. The current attempt is hoping to capitalise on the weakness of the Prime Minister and his lack of social conviction.
The greatest side effect of the current plebiscite is that it has forced the proponents of gay marriage to defend their position and it’s not going well. Once you get past the slogans and the insults and the hatred for anyone of an opposing view, there’s not much there. The corporate campaigns and media haranguing are starting to reek of desperation that the gig might be up. The overreach of your comrades overseas has tipped us off to your end game and we’re not buying it.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.