web analytics
≡ Menu

The rainbow assault to cause massive fallout

The rainbow assault has massive fallout

As long as LGBTIQ gestapo get their way collateral damage is of no importance. The “Smith” private member bill that has become the most important matter among Australia’s many administrative woes may well have far reaching legal penalties for those that dare to disagree.

Coalition MPs opposed to same-sex marriage are building their case against change, warning that it could leave churches, schools, charities and individuals that defend traditional marriage exposed to legal challenges.

Source: News Corp

Legal threat on same-sex marriage push

The battlelines for the No campaign were staked out this week by Tony Abbott, who framed his opposition in terms of a defence of free speech, religious freedom and a check on political correctness.

West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie yesterday developed this theme, saying religious protections in the private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage championed by WA Liberal senator Dean Smith were insufficient. “What protections will be given both to individuals and institutions?” he said.

“The Smith bill only offered protections to individuals involved in the conduct of weddings. It failed to grasp the far-reaching significance of redefining marriage.”

Mr Hastie suggested discrimin­ation laws across the country were skewed against those who continued to defend traditional marriage — individuals could be left legally exposed for simply speaking their minds while non-government schools could be forced to change their teachings if same-sex marriage was passed.

“What about Australians who hold to the view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on empirical evidence, biology and historical precedence? This is how I’ve made the case as a parliamentarian — without reference to sexuality or ­religion … will that view be acceptable if we change the definition?

“Will people, churches, schools, charitable organisations and businesses be protected if they hold to the common view of marriage?”

His comments were backed by Victorian Liberal MP Kevin Andrews and echoed by the Moderator General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, John P. Wilson, who told The Australian the lack of religious protections in the Smith bill posed a threat to Presbyterian schools. “There is no doubt that teachers will be required to teach pupils about the validity of same-sex marriage. What protections will there be if they conscientiously object?” Mr Wilson said.

“In Victoria, state policy is that ‘Schools must support and respect sexual diversity including same-sex attraction’.

“In Canada, which has already gone down this path in 2005 … there are no exemptions for teachers in either state or faith-based schools. They must support this material, despite misgivings. What implications will this have in schools associated with the Presbyterian Church such as The Scots College in Sydney, PLC Sydney, PLC Armidale, St Andrew’s School in Wantirna, Melbourne?”

Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson said it was important to ensure appropriate protections for religious freedoms were included in any shake-up to the definition of marriage. “I support same-sex marriage but am concerned about the impact it will have on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Where we draw the line to balance those competing rights is a very difficult question,” he said.

{ 17 comments… add one }
  • Bushkid 11/08/2017, 7:59 am

    ” “I …….. but am concerned about the impact it will have on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Where we draw the line to balance those competing rights is a very difficult question,” ”

    This is exactly my point. I’m thinking that if the question is so difficult we should not be even considering a vote yet. We certainly must not vote (nor, especially, should MPs vote) until we have seen the full legislation, and its content, meaning and full implications have been fully explained and debated in the public sphere. Only then will we know whether to vote yes or no. Anything less is insulting and devious.

    • Graham 11/08/2017, 11:14 am

      I absolutely agree, why would you vote for something you have seen or worse, understand. I want to see the details and assess the implications before I vote NO.

  • Bushwanker 11/08/2017, 8:10 am

    I would suggest that the proponents for the no vote,. instead of being on the defence, take the lead and go on the attack against allowing same sex marriage and also attack the underlying abomination of homosexuality.
    Homosexuality is being shoved down our throats by politicians, big business and the UN and shouldn’t this fact ring alarm bells.

  • Bill 11/08/2017, 8:25 am

    ‘Shoved down our throats’ is perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase when discussing this particular topic, Bushwanker…

    • Neville 11/08/2017, 11:30 am

      A bit like the people pushing this crap …

      • Around 16/08/2017, 11:35 pm

        It’s all a bit hard to swallow !!

  • Lorraine 11/08/2017, 8:51 am

    You can bully people and they give in, you can bully others and they DIG in. I have a big spade and I am digging in. Civil Union is open to the same sex couples, forget Marriage, it is between a Man and a woman. In my opinion breaking down the Family and the religion of these families is what the left , Soros and the world order want to do, when there is lives shattered over future legal challenges , who cares its the damage caused as they march to an end , the mantra whatever it takes

    • Penguinite 11/08/2017, 11:34 am

      Call a spade a spade wheres my shovel. We can start by calling this abomination out for what it is and that is HOMOSEXUALITY!! Stop repeating their synonyms! By using their language we are indicating acceptance.

    • Neville 11/08/2017, 11:40 am

      Yep. I agree, Lorraine; a legally-recognised civil union with all attendant rights and privileges ALREADY exists in Australia. Thousands of hetero Australians avail themselves of this same Australian law – a civil union – and have the SAME rights. Some elect to conduct the Australian law civil union process in a particular place (a church) with longstanding traditional ceremonies and protocols, but in 20th and 21st Century Australia, that’s actually secondary in the eyes of the law of the state. So the homos ALREADY have all full rights and privileges of a civil union in this country, just the same as heteros.
      The ONLY reason they all want to have these changes to “marriage” is to debase it and push further the destruction of the family unit as the basic care mechanism for children, in order to substitute “the state” as mum and dad. Worked really well in socialist countries, didn’t it? (Hint: not)

  • Michael 11/08/2017, 10:09 am

    You can bully people … and they give in
    You can bully people and they DIG in.
    Thankyou Lorraine. so very well said.
    I too, have a VERY big spade

  • DB8tr 11/08/2017, 10:11 am

    I may be wrong – but anyone remember the bombastic conceit of MSM and the Demotards re the US election? And then, boom! Trump wins. That was because there was an internal silent fury and disgust at political brainwashing and PC. People werent even prepared to be public with their voting intention in polls (when asked).

    Could it be that with a postal plebiscite – the ‘silent’ fury of the populace will vote and shock the pink tied feminist Credit Card Bill, Angry Tanyie and Penny Wrong?

    • Neville 11/08/2017, 11:43 am

      One really hopes so, DB8tr.
      It’s the hidden agenda that infuriates me. Straight out of the frankfurt school/cultural marxism/critical theory/gramsci-inspired playbook.

  • Bwana Neusi 11/08/2017, 10:22 am

    “A pig in a poke” as the old saying goes. Or “Collateral damage” as the Americans would say.

  • Bushkid 11/08/2017, 3:57 pm

    In another excerpt from the Oz on line today:

    “Malcolm Turnbull has not ruled out co-signing a letter with Bill Shorten advocating a Yes vote in the gay marriage postal plebiscite, but says the move could be “counterproductive”.

    and: “However Mr Turnbull did not entirely reject the proposal.”
    “I will certainly be telling Australians I support a Yes vote, I’ll be encouraging them to vote Yes. Whether I sign a letter with Bill Shorten, I’ll reflect on whether that is useful. It may actually be counterproductive,” he said.

    Counterproductive – you bet it will be trumble. You’re in deep enough do-do now, keep digging if you think it’ll help, but you’re up to your bottom lip now and praying nobody makes any waves. I might point out that it’s not for our political leaders to be telling us what we should think or feel, or what our consciences should dictate – that’s our business alone, and we were promised a plebiscite to voice our opinions and our consciences. We don’t trust yours or any other politicians conscience.

    He did go on to note that: “Same-sex marriage is an important issue but there are a lot of other much more important issues for me to focus on but I will certainly encourage Australians to vote Yes.”

    Good of him to notice that there are more important things to deal with than SSM.

  • Bushkid 11/08/2017, 4:04 pm

    Telling people how to vote, as Shorten is advocating Turnbull to do, is the stuff of dictatorships. I wonder if there’s coercion being applied to union members, staff, public servants, Qantas employees etc to vote “yes”?

    This is only going to get ugly if the “yes” proponents make it so. I reckon you’d find that those in the “No” camp are more likely to want to have their vote (in private), but will readily recognise a fair majority should that be the result, and accept that the majority of the population do in fact agree that SSM should be legislated for. And therein lies the difference between the two camps, as evidenced by behaviour to date.

    • Joe Blogs 11/08/2017, 4:15 pm

      Trumble and Shortarse are supposed to be RCs. Has that idiot in the Vatican issued an encyclical giving SSM his “blessing”, or are those two hypocrites expanding their respective lists of sins?

  • Lorraine 11/08/2017, 6:39 pm

    driving to an appointment today, in the sky appeared a rainbow, how sad it is now a rejected sight, when a child and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow was a magical occurrence . Now it reminds one of the SSM tribe and all that Hell and verbals on Tv for over 12 months now. so sick of the meme and really cross another part of my childhood spoilt

Leave a Comment