A Lurker – An Open Letter to the Liberal Democratic Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the National Party of Australia.

Good Afternoon,

Now that those of you who have agitated for same-sex marriage have received the go-ahead from 61.6% of those who sent back ‘Yes’ responses to your postal survey, I would ask the following questions of your lawmakers:

  1. What exactly are you planning on doing to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of all Australians, especially those of minority groups (and Christians/Social-Conservatives now could be categorised as a minority group) are not eroded or diminished by same-sex marriage being written into law?
  2. How exactly will you protect and strengthen the following freedoms – Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Expression and last, but not least, Freedom of Religion?
  3. How will you ensure that both religious and non-religious Australians will not suffer discrimination, law-fare, violence, bullying and intimidation simply for holding a public view against same-sex marriage?
  4. How will you ensure that families can remove their children/opt out of Government educational programs like and similar to ‘Safe Schools’ without negative consequences for either the child or the family?
  5. How will you ensure that radical gender theory is not wholesale inflicted on Australian society?
  6. How exactly will you ensure that protections for any and all freedoms that are written into law cannot be easily overturned, rescinded, removed or diluted by future Governments?
  7. In your haste to pass a Same-Sex Marriage Bill, how will you ensure that by passing such a Bill, you will do no further harm to Australian society?

Respectfully,

A Lurker

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to A Lurker – An Open Letter to the Liberal Democratic Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the National Party of Australia.

  1. Big_Nambas

    They will do none of the above!

    I voted no.

  2. a happy little debunker

    I believe their answer to your questions remains F U!

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded. People are still free to attend the religious ceremonies of their choice and consult with the deity of their choice. Businesses are still prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices.

  4. .

    Leyonhjelm’s bill has been in Parliament for over three years, he blogs here occasionally, he has a public and private email that aren’t too hard to get and the policies are on the LDP website.

  5. Sparkle Motion

    Is this about a cake again?

  6. Graham

    Even if a majority of them wanted to do any or all of the above (which I doubt) they couldn’t muster a majority in the Senate (and probably not the House of Representatives) to pass a bill which attempted any of those things.

    The effect will inevitably be that any one daring to declare, other than in the privacy of their own home, the views about same sex “marriage” formerly professed by Senator Wong, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard (to name a few) will be fair game for legal persecution or dragged before the “human rights” commissars of this benighted country.

    Anyone reading about what has happened in the UK will see what is about to be replicated here. For example, people holding orthodox Christian beliefs not being permitted to be foster parents, a social work student being excluded from his university course (and losing his application for judicial review of the decision) for holding Christian beliefs.

    We are a country governed by knaves and fools put there by a complacent and ignorant electorate.

  7. herodotus

    It’s society that’s being eroded. The rest follows.

  8. Roger

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded. People are still free to attend the religious ceremonies of their choice and consult with the deity of their choice. Businesses are still prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices.

    1. We haven’t seen the legislation in its final form yet, so it is not clear to what extent freedom of religion, which if ti means anything is freedom to openly practice a religion, including in speech, will be protected in the future.

    2. This is one area where business people might be reasonably permitted to discriminate in accordance with conscience. For example, should civil marriage celebrants be forced to act against their beliefs and marry a same sex couple?

  9. rickw

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    Only an academic would think that the waffen ssm were going to stop just with homo marriage.

    How long did Ireland’s protections last?

  10. pbw

    Sinc,

    Maybe you’re trolling. The really disturbing possibility is that you are not.

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    Change that from “are being” to “will be”, and you answer your own question.

    Businesses are still prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices.

    As for “are being,” talk to the No campaigners who have had their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech trampled in the the way which is becoming the commonplace manner of “progressives” all over the West. We are cultivating our own Red Guards, except that these chameleons will change, depending on circumstances, into Green or Rainbow Guards. Antifa, of course, are already advanced in the Red Guards progression.

    Or you could Bernard Gaynor about the crippling monetary cost of his freedom of speech. He doesn’t even sell wedding cakes.

    If you’re not trolling, then you take nobody’s concerns about their fundamental freedoms in these circumstances seriously. Seriously?

  11. rickw

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    The definition of marriage now includes those who commit buggery.

    People’s right to not be associated with such individuals and activities is already trashed.

  12. A Lurker

    First off, thank-you for putting up my post. It is appreciated.

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded. People are still free to attend the religious ceremonies of their choice and consult with the deity of their choice. Businesses are still prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices.

    To answer your question I would direct you to the links below.

    Canada
    Tasmania
    Ireland

  13. Tim

    Section 116 of the constitution. Problem already sorted.

  14. pbw

    How exactly will you ensure that protections for any and all freedoms that are written into law cannot be easily overturned, rescinded, removed or diluted by future Governments?

    You can’t, of course. And, of course, any protections that are put in place will come under constant attack. The best defence is to shift the goalposts. Make homosexuality illegal again in the States, one by one. Then anyone who contracts a homosexual marriage is by definition breaking the State law.

  15. .

    Tim
    #2558355, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    That’s a great point and so obvious, it is a shame no one has pointed it out before now in the debate.

    If Penny Wong wants to force people to marry other people – unless they are civil servants or arguably are licensed as civil celebrants, then such a law would be plainly unconstitutional.

  16. A Lurker

    Section 116 of the constitution. Problem already sorted.

    Does Section 116 of the constitution answer these questions?

    Q. How will you ensure that both religious and non-religious Australians will not suffer discrimination, law-fare, violence, bullying and intimidation simply for holding a public view against same-sex marriage?

    Q. How will you ensure that families can remove their children/opt out of Government educational programs like and similar to ‘Safe Schools’ without negative consequences for either the child or the family?

    Q. How will you ensure that radical gender theory is not wholesale inflicted on Australian society?

  17. Rabz

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    Anyone who now publicly expresses the entirely logical statement that a man cannot be married to a man can be persecuted by the government – after they’ve been sacked from their jerb for doing so.

    Well done, Sinc and dotters, you good ol’ libertarians, you.

    P.S. Great post, Lurker – when I referred to you as a “mighty warrior”, I wasn’t joking.

  18. stackja

    Left will create more mischief as usual.

  19. Infidel Tiger

    2. This is one area where business people might be reasonably permitted to discriminate in accordance with conscience. For example, should civil marriage celebrants be forced to act against their beliefs and marry a same sex couple?

    Let’s be real here. Civil celebrants are all complete and utter weirdos and anti-religious nut cases who have done more to defile marriage than the homosexualists could ever hope to.

    Anyone who gets married in a park or on a beach isnt really married any way.

  20. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.

    — Friedrich von Hayek

  21. nilk

    Regarding parents being able to opt-out of programs like “Safe Schools” etc, forget it. They are designed as “whole school” program with discussion of gender and other irrelevant crap built in. You have to opt out of the school altogether if you want to avoid it, and when it comes to homeschooling, there are those who think that the government should be setting the curriculum for you.

  22. P

    Religion and the Constitution – an Illusory Freedom

    This appears to be recorded in 1995. I’ve glanced through it and read several parts.
    The opening remarks are interesting as well as Conclusion at the end of the document.

  23. Rabz

    discussion of gender

    There are two.

    Man and woman.

    Discussion over.

  24. Clinton

    How will you ensure that both religious and non-religious Australians will not suffer discrimination… …simply for holding a public view against same-sex marriage?

    Do you actually want the government to ban discrimination by private individuals and businesses? If so you should consider joining the Greens.

    The Liberal Democrats will not entertain this left wing clap trap you’re suggesting.

  25. .

    Anyone who now publicly expresses the entirely logical statement that a man cannot be married to a man can be persecuted by the government – after they’ve been sacked from their jerb for doing so.

    That was already true during and before the referendum – see the specific anti-vilification laws and persecution of the Catholic church for simply stating it supported the status quo a while back.

    “Now” has got little to do with it.

  26. Fisky

    That was already true during and before the referendum – see the specific anti-vilification laws and persecution of the Catholic church for simply stating it supported the status quo a while back.

    It’s worth remembering that these anti-vilification laws were supported by none other than the LDP.

  27. Roger

    Religion and the Constitution – an Illusory Freedom

    Which is why the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, drafted at a time when progressives still genuinely believed in freedoms, is so relevant to our present situation.

  28. We’ve gone from the state recording that a marriage has occurred to the state defining what a marriage is, where the new definition incorporates a revised definition of what a human is.
    .

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    Erosion of rights would be a minor flaw compared to this weird revision of personal identity.

  29. .

    Pretty rare to see a politician admit they made a mistake so soon, openly and without pressure. Now to be specific what he failed to oppose is no longer law. He didn’t support the SDA 1984 which meant the church could not even state it supported the status quo. The LDP wants the SDA repealed.

  30. .

    roger

    There have been many s 116 cases since 1995. The fact that one church or another will be favoured by bullying priests to marry people or not makes it illegal. Of course, the ICCPR gives us greater protection too (from other articles as well). I can’t see the High Court overturning the Dams Case over the “Christian baker/muff waxer” cliche. I also reckon under s 28 of the SDA, it is sexual harassment, intentionally trolling conservative Christians. It is a good thing to use the left’s laws against them.

  31. Roger

    Of course, the ICCPR gives us greater protection too (from other articles as well).

    Yes, it’s quite a good document.

    Used as a benchmark, it reveals how much the Prog-Left has shifted towards Fascism in the ensuing decades.

  32. .

    I’d rely on the “subsistence” sentence per Article 1. cl. 2. that ought to limit “non-discrimination” against trollish activists to non-SMEs if the court had to decide about competing rights in the ICCPR and other conventions. Franchisees would still be protected.

  33. OneWorldGovernment

    Why bother talking to the LNP and National Party?

    They are not Australian.

  34. stackja

    LDP can’t repeal SDA.

  35. candy

    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded.

    Children’s rights are being eroded, as they become commodities for gay couples, as gay marriage is legal and they look to “have” a family.

    Indeed, Elton John is “trying” for a third baby as he said when he heard the vote passed. Now, excuse me, but that is disgusting.
    Anyways, this won’t stop the white wealthy elites running Australia. SSM will be legalised shortly and children’s rights thrown out the window.

  36. .

    Sure we can repeal the SDA one day. I think the time has come for the LDP, ACP and maybe PHON.

  37. P

    Findings of ICCPR enforceable in Australia?

  38. .

    The ICCPR is incorporated into Australian law. It is valid under the external affairs power. There is no need to have a “finding” from the UN committee. The covenant is even a schedule to the AHRC Act.

  39. stackja

    P
    #2558561, posted on November 19, 2017 at 9:28 pm
    Findings of ICCPR enforceable in Australia?

    Australia agreed to be bound by the ICCPR on 13 August 1980, subject to certain reservations. 3

  40. Rayvic

    Good questions.

    Neither Turnbull nor Shorten can be trusted to do anything positive to address them.

    Instead, they will attempt to con the ‘conservatives’ by promising to pass Sen. Dean Smith’s bill by Christmas and to address the questions at a later stage — which of course would not happen.

  41. .

    Did you read what the reservations are, stackja? The reservation about art 2 cl. 1 does no more effectively than acknowledge that the SDA exists. Furthermore, no reservations about art 18 were made.

    If the ACP, PHON or LDP or a successor or competitor can never form government; give up because the LNP is just a hoax now and it cannot be reformed.

  42. Felix Kruell

    Rickw:

    The definition of marriage now includes those who commit buggery.

    Sorry to break it to, but it always has been. You have been associating with them for years without even knowing it. Or being harmed by it.

  43. Shigella

    I was under the impression that this was a libertarian blog. There seem to be an increasing number of conservative posts on here.
    While the liberties you mention are certainly important to protect, Why link them to same sex marriage? Restricting the liberty of others to marry whoever they please isn’t going to strengthen them. Equally, allowing everyone to marry whoever they wish does not automatically undermine any of these liberties. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be up to others to permit or deny who anyone marries. Unless you are the one of the two consenting individuals getting married, it is none of your business.
    All individual liberties should be protected, not just those you happen to approve of.

  44. pbw

    Felix,
    He’s been harmed by it alright. We all have. One of the reasons we’re here now is decades of pressure to normalise sodomy in married couples. This extends now even to some enthusiasts within US Evangelicals.

    I recall that John Herron, a surgeon in a previous life, objected to the promotion of sodomy in sex education materials, maintaining that it was a bad idea even on the sole grounds of hygiene. Given the eye-popping levels of promiscuity in male hoes it probably not pertinent in that discussion to mention their sorry record of serious disease problems.

  45. Baldrick

    Good post Lurker, they’re genuine questions that need to be asked.

    I find it unbelievable that those who usually call to protect our freedoms the loudest, are now the ones saying they trust the government to do the right thing.

  46. Defender of the faith

    Lurker: would you like protection from sunburn too?

  47. A Lurker

    Lurker: would you like protection from sunburn too?

    Your analogy is bizarre, however I will attempt to respond to it.

    Away from regulated environments – school, business, industry etc., going out into the sun without sun protection is currently an individual’s choice.
    So, what if by Law that person is compelled to stand in the heat of the midday sun and no protections are offered to them?

    As it currently stands, once ssm is written into law then there will be little to no choice given to those who hold a religious or conscientious objection to it. Your choice is reduced to getting with the program or shutting-up or bearing the legal, social or financial consequences for your conscientious objection.

    In other words, the State is forcing people to remain in the sun without adequate protections from its harmful rays.

  48. AinsleyH

    No 7 refers to passing a Bill. Well, don’t get me started about a close colleague’s efforts this year to get a small one introduced, let alone passed. No such luck after a year of typing nicely.

    However, it seems that a mere 2 seconds after a so-called national ‘survey’, our betters can quickly write, read and pass something before Christmas.

    If they can do all this by December, why couldn’t we read a draft Bill before we voted in November? If if it was too difficult to give us a draft to read, how come one can be drafted so quickly now? And how come it isn’t going to be held up in the queue like almost everything else?

    I rant a bit because The Berra was unbearable last week. Frankly, as a No voter I don’t really appreciate being called a ‘dumb fuck’ by a work colleague. Not because I’m scared by such sprays from snowflakes high on paleo banana bread – I’m Australian so I can take anything and often do from fuckheads like that. Last month, one exec giggled as she confided that she had told her Catholic mother she’d kill her if she voted No. Ha ha, how funny or what. Just like that sweet old jackboot pushing oh so gently down on your face, forever, absolutely hilarious.

  49. Felix Kruell

    Pbw:

    Even if that were true, you’re only harmed if you have given in to that temptation and partaken…pbw?

    I’m sure Mr Herron would also object to MF intercourse on the basis of hygiene. It is a bit icky. There’s blood and everything!

  50. Tim wrote #2558355, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:09 pm Section 116 of the constitution. Problem already sorted.

    NO Tim it is not!

    Years ago I asked of a church-going federal AG why, in the light of Sections 109 and 116, two Christian clergymen were being persecuted in Victoria. The signed reply stated, as the Australian Constitution is an act of the British Parliament, section X does not apply.

  51. .

    Years ago I asked of a church-going federal AG why, in the light of Sections 109 and 116, two Christian clergymen were being persecuted in Victoria. The signed reply stated, as the Australian Constitution is an act of the British Parliament, section X does not apply.

    That is absolutely loopy stuff considering the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) and the Australia Act (Cth) 1986 and Australia Act 1986 (UK).

    He was incompetent or talking out of his arse.

    The issue would be if the SDA or AHRC enabled in part under the external affairs power curbed s 116 or if the exercise of the law was “establishing a religion”. We also do not have a right to free speech in Australia. We have a limited “right to free political communication”.

    Effectively though, there may be no difference. The High Court might come up with any justification to ignore one of the few explicit constitutional rights we actually have.

    Can you imagine a Commonwealth AG instructing the Solicitor General and their QCs to argue that “the constitution doesn’t matter, it is a British Act, therefore this Court does not exist”…?

    It is the Australian legal equivalent of man disproving god, black is white and being killed at the next zebra crossing.

    Unfortunately, I can…

  52. Tim #2558355, posted on November 19, 2017 at 7:09 pm – Section 116 of the constitution. Problem already sorted.

    NO Tim it is NOT!

    Years ago I inquired of a church-going federal AG, why, in the light of Sections 109 and 116, two clergymen were being persecuted in Victoria.

    The signed reply stated that, as the Australian Constitution is an act of the British Parliament, Section X does NOT apply.

    Tim, then check the HREOC Act 1986 –
    14 Form of examinations or inquiries to be at discretion of Commission etc.

    (1) For the purpose of the performance of its functions, the Commission may make an examination or hold an inquiry in such manner as it thinks fit and, in informing itself in the course of an examination or inquiry, is not bound by the rules of evidence.

  53. .

    There is nothing informing the rules of evidence in the constitution. The protection is that judicial officers cannot be compelled to act in a non-judicial (administrative) capacity.

    I think you mean the AHRC Act now.

    The signed reply stated that, as the Australian Constitution is an act of the British Parliament, Section X does NOT apply.

    Ergo, Parliament doesn’t exist either. He wrote you garbage response and was feeding the chooks.

  54. A Lurker

    This was posted in full on Facebook, I don’t have a subscription to the Australian newspaper, so cannot provide a working link so I have copy/pasted the entire post here instead because it is worth reading and because it reinforces everything I wrote in my original post.

    Essential freedoms cannot survive if Liberals refuse to protect them

    Jennifer Oriel The Australian November 20, 2017

    John Howard sought to protect ­religious freedom by social and education policy designed to safeguard communities from the predations of the state. As a con­ser­vative, he understood that without the foundation of religious freedom, civil society falls apart. For the same reason, he now advocates substantive protections for freedom of speech and religion in respect of same-sex marriage.
    It is the much-maligned Liberal conservatives who consistently defend freedom and democracy from the cultural left on both sides of the political divide. In the rush to claim credit for the people’s vote on same-sex marriage, both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten dishonourably denied due credit to its architect, Tony Abbott. No one thanked ­Abbott for defending the people’s right to free speech even as he was vilified and physically assaulted during the gay marriage campaign.
    Instead, PC elites who tried to deny democracy by censoring the people’s vote on same-sex marriage have resumed their war on freedom. Predictably, their hate speech is directed at the “white Christian conservative”. No word yet from the ABC about all the ­indigenous Australians, Muslims and Sikhs who voted against same-sex marriage.
    Ironically, it took the debate over same-sex marriage to reveal why Abbott deserves a second chance to serve as Liberal Party leader. When he proposed the people’s plebiscite, he was vilified. When he advocated free speech, he was vilified. When he called for mutual respect so the vote could proceed democratically, he was vilified. At every opportunity, the elitist mob, left and right, attacked Abbott for being exactly what the nation needs: a plain-speaking politician who defends the people’s voice no matter how much he is punished by the PC elite.
    Behind closed doors, members of the Liberal left concede what they won’t admit in public; the ­finest leaders of the Liberal Party are conservative. Yet in the same-sex marriage debate, not even classical liberals were given due ­respect. When senator James ­Paterson put a deeply considered bill before the Senate to balance same-sex marriage with protections for freedom of speech and ­religion, he was mobbed. I did not agree with all of the provisions in Paterson’s bill, but it is so clearly superior to senator Dean Smith’s that only a culture of envy could produce preference for the latter.
    There are many benefits of ­enlightenment culture, but one of its deficits is the development of a highly secular society in which ­ignorance about the Judaeo-Christian tradition is reified. The ­Attorney-General’s intervention to amend Smith’s bill with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ article 18 will not provide sufficient protection for freedom of speech and religion. As human rights lawyers have generously pointed out, discrimination and equality law commonly override appeals to article 18 in Western jurisdictions. It does nothing to stop vexatious litigation and slander, which are the primary political weapons used by activists to attack people of faith. And it does nothing to protect parental rights when state schools insist on indoctrinating children about the joys of transsexuality and the great evil of ­heteronormativity.
    MPs claiming that same-sex marriage legislation can and should be treated separately from freedom of speech and religion are disingenuous. Many people voted for same-sex marriage after the PM indicated he would prioritise religious freedom. Now Turnbull claims that restricting the right to freedom of religion and speech to the clergy “doesn’t impose any ­restrictions on religious practice or religious speech”. What a curiously pre-Reformation attitude for a Prime Minister who professes to be progressive.
    The militancy of some queer activists is the reason that same-sex marriage legislation must ­include freedom of speech and anti-detriment provisions. There are dozens of international cases where people of faith have been hauled before courts and tribunals after expressing support for traditional marriage.
    In Australia, there are numerous examples of Christians being punished for freedom of speech, including biblical citation. The freedoms most under threat from militants are freedom of speech, religion and association. Recall the young woman fired from her job after posting support for traditional marriage on her Facebook page. Will MPs allow young Australians to be punished for expressing religious belief?
    Internationally, the situation for people who express traditional or simply biologically accurate views on sex and sexuality is ­deteriorating. Schools are being used to enforce conformity to queer ideology. In Britain, the state failed a Jewish school’s ­assessment because it did not promote queer sexuality.
    Parental consent is undermined by the PC state. A Canadian court ruled that a father could not withdraw his child from queer sexuality classes by being offered advance notice of them. Australian schools too have been sub­jected to a state-backed push for queer theory under the Safe Schools program.
    The university sector is ensuring PC monoculture reigns over diversity. The British High Court upheld a university’s right to expel student Felix Ngole for sharing biblical scripture on marriage. Like the young Australian woman fired from her job after supporting traditional marriage, Ngole is a Christian. And like her, he mounted a well-reasoned argument to defend his use of a personal Facebook ­account to express views online. The court rejected his appeal. As a result, Ngole will not be able to practise as a social worker.
    I don’t credit Ngole’s view that homosexuality is a sin, but a ­nation that permits the purging of political dissidents from economic ­activity is a nation sleepwalking into a totalitarian trap. Queer militancy bears many hallmarks of totalitarianism such as unrelenting attacks on freedom of speech and religion. In Canada, Trinity Western University suffered ­repeated attacks on its ­powers of accreditation because it promotes a highly traditional ­approach to sexuality. Yet no one is trying to remove the accreditation of universities that promote a highly queer approach to sexuality.
    The absence of protections for freedom of speech empowers queer radicals to refashion same-sex marriage as a weapon to punish the politically incorrect and drive dissenters from public life. If Turnbull’s Liberals won’t defend freedom of speech and religion in the national interest, who will?

    Jennifer Oriel will be speaking on PC Culture and The Closing of The Western Mind at the Mannkal Foundation Western Civilisation Conference in Perth this Friday

  55. Iampeter

    Sorry Lurker but I think you have it all backwards.
    Since you and the other “no voters” have demonstrated that you don’t support individual rights or the government being restricted to just protecting rights, on what grounds are you now demanding that your individual rights be protected by the government?
    You live by collectivism and now you may die by collectivism too.

    Luckily there are still some of us who consistently support rights and rights protecting government and we’re the only ones in a position to be able to fight for your rights on your behalf.

    Sadly there aren’t many of us since the Conservative movement has destroyed any alternative to the left in mainstream politics, so despite our best efforts, what comes next will be entirely on your head and the other religious/traditonalist collectivists.

  56. Defender of the faith

    Lurker: what choice are you meaning? The choice to tell people whom they can marry?

  57. JohnA

    Defender of the faith #2559401, posted on November 20, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Lurker: what choice are you meaning? The choice to tell people whom they can marry?

    Sorry, but you lost that one years and years ago.

    Marriage is a pre-existing state which is recognised in the Marriage Act. It is only because persistent activists who won’t take No for an answer kept hammering away at the socially accepted definition of marriage being consummated between one man and one women that we are in this pickle.

    Marriage in the Act is restricted to consenting adults who are not already married*, and who are not closer in consanguinity than the natural taboos define.

    * with a rider that under-age couples require the consent of their parents.

    Thus the Act already tells people whom they can(not) marry.

  58. .

    Marriage is a pre-existing state which is recognised in the Marriage Act. It is only because persistent activists who won’t take No for an answer kept hammering away at the socially accepted definition of marriage being consummated between one man and one women that we are in this pickle.

    John Howard changed it in 2004.

  59. stackja

    LDP wants open every thing? At what cost to society?

  60. .

    It would have cost society nothing if John Howard didn’t change the law. A small number of gay marriages would have continued to happen overseas. There wouldn’t be the debate about religious rights and conscience. There would have been less demand to have SSM here.

    The only person to legally change the definition of marriage so far in Australia is John Howard. No one else.

  61. stackja

    LDP never accepts consequences?

  62. .

    The conservative perspective would have seen better outcomes if nothing was done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *