Interview with Ryan Anderson on why marriage is not about consenting adult romance.
Dr Ryan T Anderson is the Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC and is one of the world’s foremost experts in the same sex marriage debate.
God didn't wait to win a popularity vote before acting to redeem and reconcile, writes Murray Campbell.
Rev Dr Peter Catt and Dr Stuart Edser have offered a strange and misleading picture of the Christian faith. Despite claiming an allegiance to Christianity, their thesis has more in common with a late night 'reality' television show than with the teaching and work of Jesus Christ.
First of all, Catt and Edser would have us believe that the majority of Australian Christians now support homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, it doesn't take much to realise that they have been selective in their presentation of the evidence.
They were able to cite two polls, by Crosby-Textor and Galaxy. The former was commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality (AME), and both failed to make the crucial differentiation between nominal Christians and practising Christians, which is a normal sociological and theological distinction. It is odd that two 'Christian' ministers should so glibly assume as Christian any person who identifies with the name in a survey. Even Jesus saw through such superficial clap-trap, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt 7:21).
The Bible doesn't define Christian as any persons who use the name, but those who believe in and live according to the truth revealed in Jesus Christ. At best, what this means for these polls is that one might be able to argue that the views of nominal Christians have changed over the last 10 years.
Second, Catt and Edser perpetuate the myth that loving LGBTI people requires us to affirm their lifestyle. Such a shallow ethic may fit neatly in the secularist mindset, but the Christian worldview goes far deeper and wider. Christians believe that it is possible to genuinely love a person whilst disagreeing with their values. In fact it is love that sometimes necessitates disagreement.
In the Bible we learn that the Jesus who insisted upon the Genesis paradigm for marriage also deeply loved the sexually broken. He could rebuke a societal leader who sought an easy divorce, and he could love and befriend a prostitute. Similarly, it is possible for Christians today to speak against same-sex marriage and yet build genuine friendships with LGBTI people. But we do so, appreciating that even at our best, we are nonetheless anaemic, faint sketches of the One who is 'full of grace and truth' (John 1:14).
This is not to diminish incidents when Christians have wronged gay people. Many stories of hatred have substance to them and we must repent of such horrendous treatment. Indeed, we can and must do better.
It is clear that Catt and Edser are trying to present to the Australian public a new and progressive face to Christianity, but the same could be said of the novel-looking horse that the Greeks left outside the gates of Troy. The only gift that Christians have to offer is the very same gift that we have received by the kindness of God, and it is a gift, though ancient, which remains powerful and beautiful today.
The Apostle Paul wrote of this gift to a group of citizens in a city whose relativistic contour towards ethics was similar to ours, and to them he said, "you see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8).
The Bible speaks of a God who acted beyond helping his friends; he gave his life for people who are disinterested in him and who don't approve of him. However, God didn't wait to win a popularity vote before acting to redeem and reconcile, but he took the initiative and in doing so God refused the path of blind relativism and sucking up revisionism. He loves too much to agree with every desire and ambition we ignite.
Murray Campbell is lead Pastor at Mentone Baptist Church.
Matt Canavan on how the opposers of traditional marriage and family seek to silence all opposition and free debate.
Children's Rights are Human Rights Too.
"...what I was delighted to find when I read Scripture is that God has an incredible heart for the orphan and that he’s very concerned with the plight of children. And that lines up very much with where we need to go in this discussion, which is focusing on the rights of children primarily as opposed to emphasizing the desires of adults, which tend to take centre stage when we’re talking about this issue."
...as a society, we shouldn’t normalize a family structure that requires children to lose one or both parents to be in that household."
"And adults – the onus needs to be on adults to conform to the rights of children rather than children fitting into an adult’s lifestyle."
"...what I heard from the gay lobby was that children don’t care who’s raising them, right? That children are just fine if it’s two men or two women. And the reality is that anybody that’s talked to a child who has lost a parent, whether through divorce, abandonment, third-party reproduction or death, kids absolutely care. Family structure matters to children."
Every child deserves the right to grow up with their father and mother.
Journalist Jane Fynes-Clinton, who lectures in Journalism and Public Relations at the University of the Sunshine Coast, has a BRILLIANT article in the Courier-Mail, criticising the intolerance of the ‘pro-same-sex-‘marriage’ brigade and highlighting the influence of social media...
“ REMEMBER school debating? Where both sides got a turn and the other team sat listening quietly and respectfully?
We need more of that – a version for mature, hopeful, civilised grown-ups.
The current debate over same-sex marriage is one-sided, volatile, even violent.
In the movement to open up and move forward, the side that supports the prevailing laws and conventions is increasingly silenced. And it is not only same-sex marriage that features this concerning trend. In the explosive social media spaces particularly, there are now some views you are seemingly not allowed to express – and by doing so are called a bigot. Oh, the irony. . .”
Jane also says,
“In Australia, social pressure is stifling free speech – the left is very vocal and crushes any chance of a dissenting, considered view.
People are entitled to recalcitrant opinions, even if we do not agree with them.
And the gay marriage debate in public forums is in no way balanced – as seen in the abandonment of ads calling for a mature discussion about the likely outcomes of gay marriage by commercial networks and the ferocious put-down of traditional marriage proponent Katy Faust on Monday night’s Q&A program. Considered, conservative, old-fashioned views might be unpopular in the madding crowd, but they are still valid. In a free country, they deserve to be heard.
As it stands, those who dare speak in support of the current marriage laws are shouted down before they are fully expressed.
Worse, intolerance rains down on those who express those views in ways unprecedented. They are threatened, vilified, verbally roughed up.
READ the articles in full… Social pressure stifling free speech as vocal Left crushes any chance of a dissenting, considered view, Jane Fynes-Clinton, Courier Mail, via SaltShakers.org.au 20/8/2015.
A clear reading of Scripture shows the natural order of human relationship is that a man leaves his mother and father and joins as one with a woman. That view is reinforced with many Scriptures stating clearly that men laying with men and women laying with women is sin – against nature as God designed it.
There is no new ‘theology’ on this issue, no genuine way of reinterpreting what the Bible says about love and sex and relationships, so one must dismiss much of Scripture before you can come to accept homosexuality as ‘normal’ and acceptable in any way shape or form.
The Bible is clear - we are to love the sinner but reject/admonish, yes, even hate the sin.
To mistreat children because of the sins of their parents, and to normalise sinful behaviour and accept sinful relationships of any sort cause untold harm to the individuals concerned and to society as a whole.
Acceptance of the sin promotes sin, it serves no good purpose whatsoever except perhaps it make people who do it, feel good. Gets them ‘liked’. While at the same time denigrates everyone who holds to Biblical truth.
The sins of ‘abuse’, by those who call themselves Christians, which are all over our papers today, bring shame on every Christian. Many times it has been held up against those who speak out against sin of any sort, but especially sexual sin, as a taunt, as though we are all guilty of it.
In just the same way those who reject Scripture and endorse homosexuality, and by default almost all other sexual sins, are seen as ‘enlightened’ and ‘progressive’ and held up as a taunt against those who stand firm on the truth of Scripture.
The whole church, but especially the Catholic Church, has been undermined by the infiltration of worldly ideas that led to cruelty to, and abuse of, children. Before that it was the worldly view that ‘coloured’ people were part of the ‘evolution of man’ and therefore less than human, which led to appalling racial prejudice by the church and society.
Today, it is the false worldly idea that homosexuality is bred into someone - that they are ‘born that way’ and that it cannot be changed - that has infiltrated the church and led to some very flawed revisionist ‘theology’.
April 15th 2015
Gay and godless: Left pushing their agenda, Daily Telegraph, 14/8/2015.
“HOMOSEXUAL marriage is a minor issue for most Australians but it is being pushed to the forefront by the ABC and other agenda-driven organisations hell-bent on marginalising religion in their push for a secular nation. Mainstream Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and followers of other faiths believe in the traditional form of marriage which has prevailed in all cultures for millennia. Many for whom homosexual marriage has suddenly become a burning issue are those who take issue with religion.
“Abruptly changing age-old definitions to suit relatively recent fashions is extremely dangerous, but it is clear that Labor believes it is even more dangerous to take a principled stand in electorates where there is a large Green and/or homosexual vote.
“The ABC’s Radio National is obsessed with the issue, though its presenters do not warn listeners of their personal conflicts of interest. . .” They also do not warn their listeners of the health, physical and mental, dangers associated with gay sex acts such as anal sex, oral sex, and all the risks associated by the lifestyle they are promoting.
"Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.” Homosexual activist Camille Paglia (from her 1994 book Vamps and Tramps).
'Gay marriage' advocates have more explaining to do
The Coalition's decision to keep its marriage policy unchanged has been met by predictable howls of discontent. But it's no wonder there is caution. The implications of such legislation for the community are enormous, while the contributions from advocates are often limited to slogans, and the occasional slur against anyone who disagrees. (Canberra Times 13/8/15)
By Chuck Colson in 2010:
For some time now, I’ve been warning you about the various threats to religious freedom. We’ve talked about the gay rights movement, which insidiously insists that religious believers and organizations bow before the altar of sexual freedom. We’ve talked about the so-called health care reform bill, which does not protect freedom of conscience of medical practitioners.
But now I’m seeing the threat to religious freedom in its most pernicious and dangerous form ever.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. In a speech at Georgetown University, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on human rights. Not only did she talk about the right “to love in any way you choose,” (an obvious attempt at making protecting gay rights a top priority for the U.S. government), she also talked about “freedom of worship.”
But she never mentioned freedom of religion. Only freedom of worship--a big change.
In the First Amendment, the founders (whose work we celebrate this weekend) wisely ensured that government could not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. And that means so much more than freedom of worship. It guarantees that we're not restricted to living out our faith in the privacy of our homes or church sanctuaries. It means we're free to exercise our religion—and contend for faith—in every area of life.
Just this clever dissembling of words is an apparent attempt to restrict freedom of religion to freedom of worship only. Do you see the implications? Sure, I'm free to attend church, sing hymns, pray over meals, offer thanks to God for my children and grandchildren. That’s my own private affair.
But should the government succeed in redefining freedom of religion, how much longer can I practice my faith in public?
If you read history, you'll see that the first act of a tyrant is to suppress religion, which means, of course, religious practice. Our Founders knew this. They knew the first English settlers came to these shores precisely so they could practice their faith.
And if you read history, you’ll know that the one true threat to a tyrant’s rule is always a believer’s loyalty to a God Who is above the god of the state.
This is why Christians were thrown to the lions in ancient Rome. The earliest baptismal confession of the young Christian Church was “Jesus is Lord.” And that meant Caesar was not. This is why Hitler and Stalin first went after the church. The star of David and the cross were symbols of an authority higher than their own.
We all know about the battles over the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “under God,” the battles over manger scenes on public property. These are important, but they are skirmishes, mere skirmishes. The real battle is about whether God is Lord, or whether government is Lord. And make no mistake, if government can redefine or restrict our freedom of religion, our first freedom will be gone.
And, as our Founders understood, when that freedom is gone, we will, in short order, lose all of our other freedoms as well.
The above article was written by Chuck Colson in 2010. www.BreakPoint.org
To pre-order your copy of Chuck's new book "My Final Word," come to our online bookstore at BreakPoint.org. The book will be released officially August 4.
Brendan O'Neill is an atheist, yet he can clearly see the dangers ahead not just for Christians and others who have not seared their conscience with repeated lies that "truth is dead and therefore anything and everything goes except Christianity." Truth may well have been silenced in the public square by the takeover of the main-stream-media by forces opposed to marriage, family and truth, but it nonetheless remains the truth.
Just because Charles Darwin in the late 1800s, Vladimir Lenin in the early 1900s, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler in the 1930-1940s, Mao Tse-tung in the 1940s-1960s (and all their modern equivalents) promoted the lie that "God is dead, therefore you must worship and obey me," does nothing to change the truth that God is what He is: God. His truth remains truth, and He will be patient and merciful, but not forever.
Martin Niemoller said, “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
History acts as a warning to those defending truth but also as a teacher to those who seek to silence truth, who learn much from men like Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, whose motto was, “If you tell any lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, people will come to believe it.”
Germany was covered by a fog of deception for years because of this tactic, a fog which allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of people who he considered either a threat to his sovereign rule or of lesser importance than his arrogant self.
The modern anarchists and their media supporters who now seek to trash our society by destroying foundations such as marriage and family are using this same propaganda tactic to indoctrinate the West. They saturate the media with images of homosexuals doing what they do, repeat their lies over and over again, and silence, ridicule and mock all opposition.
How do you know that a deception is a lie? As always, look at the fruit produced. Use common sense. Think it through. Does it stand up to public scrutiny, to honest and open debate, does it really benefit society, are the proposers respectful and honest? Does their worldview stack up to honest scrutiny? Is what they are proposing good for people? What are they hiding when they seek to rush through change without proper and lengthy public debate?
Use common-sense. For example, think about the human anatomy. The truth about the need for a male and a female to together make a child and continue the human race. The truth about the obvious purpose of, and the complementary nature of, a man's and a woman's sexual organs. The obvious purpose of a human bowel to excrete human waste from the anus. Human beings have separate reproductive and digestive systems for good reason.
But do not be deceived, although this time it may well be the Christian first, it will not stop there. So speak while you still can.
I do not believe this debate is about giving equality to certain minority groups. Only true Christianity, and following the way set forth by our Creator, gives true equality to all human beings. It is bigger than that. It is open rebellion against authority, ultimately against the authority of God. The pots are in open rebellion against the Pot maker. They are deceived that they know better, that they are better, wiser, more "advanced" than all past generations of pots. This rebellion always ends the same way though: broken pots.
As for me and my house I will stick with God rather than follow man, especially the rowdy mob. Even if I get broken because of it He is more than able to put me back together.
Miranda Devine – column on PM Tony Abbott’s actions on homosexual ‘marriage’
“YOU can measure suburban grassroots support for Tony Abbott in inverse proportion to the vehemence of his opponents. And his opponents are feral at the moment on gay marriage.
Virtually with one voice the media establishment and the political class have condemned the Prime Minister for his plan to allow the public to vote on such contentious social change. Even some of his more image-conscious cabinet colleagues confidently proclaim he is on the “wrong side of history”. When have we heard this said before about Abbott?
On the republic. On climate change. On both issues he stood firm, was denigrated for it and eventually was shown to have been on the right side of history.
“Time will tell whether gay marriage will give Abbott the trifecta. But there was a clue in the overwhelming 2:1 majority in the Coalition party room — even stronger among the back bench — during Tuesday night’s marathon meeting which rejected a “free vote” — a.k.a. a “conscience vote”, a.k.a. a proxy vote — for same sex marriage.
But right now the sore losers in his government are running around briefing journalists against him…
“It’s a puzzle. If the advocates of gay marriage are as confident as they claim that close to three quarters of the public is with them, then why are they so upset about the decision of the Coalition party room to allow a public vote?
Either they have been lying about community sentiment or they have nothing to fear.
The only way to legitimise such a contentious and important re-engineering of the foundational institution of our society is to allow a public vote. ..”
Article: Miranda Devine: PM Tony Abbott right to rain on irate rainbow parade, Daily Telegraph, 15/8/2015.
Tony Jones, the ABC 's resident bully, intimidator, mocker of all things good, just and noble, continued his Roman circus on Monday the 17th August 2015, by stacking his panel to support his own view and to vilify, humiliate and treat with great disrespect two visitors to our nation on public TV. His tactics are obscene and it is hoped that the majority of Australians have enough common sense to see that his type of behavior and tactics are completely un-Australian. Unfortunately it reveals the ugly side of the attempt to oppose and destroy marriage and family in Australia. The bullies sense victory is close so expect much more to come. The following are some excerpts and comments from the Q&A show. as found on and used with gratitude to the website www.saltshakers.org.au
"I just think it’s fascinating that you guys feel that women make a difference and that it is helpful to have both perspectives and that certainly that can bring about a more balanced party and certainly it does represent, you know, half of the population and I guess that you might agree that the gender balance matters in the life of a child too. Right? No, really. And I think that it was your Senator Eric Abetz, he said marriage is the only institution that's gotten the gender balance right and he's right.” (Katy Faust)
The ABC showed its bias again last night in the conduct of Q & A. Katy Faust was outnumbered. Three politicians who are in FAVOUR of homosexual ‘marriage’ were on the panel. Two of them were very hostile and rude to Katy - Labor Senator Sam Dastyari and Greens Senator Richard Di Natale.
Then there was Liberal MP Kelly O’Dwyer, who “politely” supported same-sex ‘marriage’. Host Tony Jones is also in favour, and asked questions himself to challenge statements about Christianity, and her views, that Katy had made on her blog.
Finally, there was Brendan O’Neill, a libertarian who is the editor of Spiked Online. He has written extensively on the battle about same-sex ‘marriage’, pointing out how intolerant the homosexual ‘equality’ activists are of anyone who opposes their agenda. He was supportive of Katy and criticised Dastyari and Di Natale for their statements.
Brendan stated on Q & A,
“My problem - my problem with the gay marriage debate is that it actually increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it. So the presentation of this as a liberal issue is completely facetious. This is about the state having the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage. . . For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry because what you’re saying is that you will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians.”
His final comment was,
“Gay marriage activists - gay marriage activists compare - they compare - they compare themselves - they - hold on. Hold on. They compare themselves to Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King said, "We do not hate our enemies. We love them". The exact opposite is the case of gay marriage activists. The exact opposite.”
And this was from a non-Christian!
O’Neill calls himself "an atheistic libertarian" (source). As we’ve often said, when the Christians don’t speak up, even the stones will cry out! (From Luke 19:40)
Just yesterday, I came across an excellent article by Brendan, written after the Irish referendum, that we have previously sent out – but it is worth reading AGAIN! See link below.
In response to a child of lesbian mothers, who asked why her mums could not get married, Katy said,
“I'm really grateful that you feel like you’re able to speak up and share how you feel. Certainly that's not the case for a lot of kids with same sex parents because this debate has been framed as one that is based on prejudice and what that does is it shuts down a real robust debate. And in our country, we really didn't have one. It was so demonised from the beginning that anybody that supported traditional marriage was doing so based on bias or bigotry or hatred or homophobia or something and what it did is it totally shut it down and people felt like they could not speak up.”
Katy explained her position well, throughout the program, despite being interrupted and called names. She discussed the fact that the studies about same-sex parenting are flawed – with small numbers and self-select volunteer participants.
Watch the video (link below) to see the debate – it shows what we are facing as we move to a ‘public vote’!
When Katy was given the “final word” by Tony Jones, “because a lot has been said about your views”, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale ridiculed her when she made statements about research concerning same-sex parenting and that the social sciences affirmed that “The reality is that the married mother/father household determines the best outcome.”
He responded with “Nonsense. That’s rubbish!”
Katy responded, “O my, rubbish!”
Di Natale continued to interject with “It’s wrong.”
So much for a civilised debate. . .
With a proposed ‘public vote’ on the issue of homosexual ‘marriage’ looming, the homosexual activists and their supporters are already showing that they don’t want to hear from anyone who disagrees with them.
As Brendan O’Neill said, they do NOT ‘love their enemies’ and are intolerant. During the program he said, “Here is what freaks me out about gay marriage. It presents itself as this kind of liberal civil rightsy issue but it has this really ugly intolerant streak to it…”
Get prepared for more of the same. . .
When those who oppose homosexual ‘marriage’ present their views, even when backed up by research and evidence, they are ridiculed, called names, told that their research is “nonsense” and generally accused of being bigoted and nasty…
As Brendan O’Neill said,
“But what's extraordinary and unacceptable is that they cannot tolerate the existence of people who do not support gay marriage and I think we sometimes fail to understand how extraordinary that is and I think the reason Tony Abbott is very defensive on this issue and is erming and ahing and shifting from the free vote to the not free vote and all this stuff, he clearly has a problem with gay marriage but he can't articulate it because we live in a climate in which it’s not acceptable, as we have just seen in Sam's attack on Katy, calling her hateful and saying she’s talking claptrap, it’s not acceptable to express this sentiment in public life...”
Sources and Articles:
Q & A program – includes video and transcript.
Ethics, Equality & Evasion, Q & A, ABC, Monday 17 August, 2015.
Same-sex ‘marriage’ discussion from 11.39 min to 39.35 min.
Each question is listed, and has a LIVE LINK on the listed time.
Lateline – Interview: Katy Faust lobbies against same-sex marriage
ABC, 12/8/2015. 7 minute video.
Katy Faust’s blog: Ask the Bigot – click here
WITH GRATITUDE TO A WONDERFUL SOURCE: www.saltshakers.org.au
The new dark ages, where the perfectly normal are branded bigots
Something terrifying has happened during the past five years: a belief that was held by virtually all human beings for centuries has been rebranded as bigotry, something that may no longer be expressed in polite society.
That belief is that marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman, or between a man and many women: the idea that marriage is a union of opposite sexes.
This was once seen as a perfectly normal point of view. Now, in the historical blink of an eye, it has been denormalised, and with such ferocity and speed that anyone still brave enough to express it runs the risk of being ejected from public life.
Consider the ABC’s Q&A this week, and the furious response to it. The show was unusual from the get-go because it featured not one but two gay-marriage sceptics: Katy Faust, an American Christian, and me, a godless Brit.
I made the argument that gay marriage now seemed to play the same role God played 200 years ago: anyone who didn’t believe in it hadn’t a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life.
There was a chokingly conformist climate, I said, with critics of gay marriage facing demonisation, harassment and, in some cases, expulsion from decent society. Consider Brendan Eich being sacked as chief executive of Mozilla for his belief in traditional marriage. Or all those Christian cake shops beleaguered by gay-rights activists demanding that they make gay cakes. Twenty-first century religious persecution.
The response to my comments, on Twitter and in parts of the media, proved my point. It can be summed up as: “How dare you say that the gay-marriage campaign is intolerant, you bigoted arsehole?! Get out of Oz!” “Irony” doesn’t even begin to cover this.
Labor Senator Sam Dastyari, also on the Q&A panel, accused Faust of being “hateful” and talking “Christian evangelical claptrap”. Yet all she said was that marriage should be between a man and a woman and children had a right to know both their father and their mother.
The demonisation of Faust shows how thoroughly the Christian viewpoint has been turned into a kind of hate speech. Something that was a standard outlook a few years ago is now treated as a pathology.
And as a liberal — small L — I find it deeply troubling that a moral outlook can be so swiftly put beyond the pale, branded “INAPPROPRIATE”.
Then there was Twitter, which went into meltdown over Faust’s and my comments. We’re bigots, haters, scumbags, “vomiting our bile”; we should be sent packing.
You know what? Scrap my comparison of gay marriage to God: 200 years ago, in developed Western countries, even the godless had a better chance of getting ahead than gay-marriage sceptics do today.
Are Faust’s views really so controversial? Most people would back the idea that kids should ideally know their biological mum and dad.
Indeed, adopted children often seek out their biological parents, believing it will help them make sense of who they are. Maybe they’re bigots, too?
The response to Q&A shows that gay marriage is not a liberal issue. Rather, what we have here is the further colonisation of public life by an elite strata of society — the chattering class — and the vigorous expulsion of all those who do not genuflect to their orthodoxies. Whether you’re a climate-change denier, a multiculturalism sceptic or, the lowest of the low, someone who believes in traditional marriage, you’re clearly mad and must be cast out.
The social impact of this illiberal liberalism will be dire.
A whole swath of society — the old, the religious, the traditionalist — will feel like moral lepers in their own country, silencing themselves lest they, too, be branded scum.
What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?
by Lita Cosner
Published: 7 May 2015 (GMT+10)
Some professing Christians direct hateful statements toward the homosexual community, while others minimize or even reject the Bible’s teachings on this issue. Homosexual activists point to the former group as proof that Christianity is often inherently ‘homophobic’, and point to the latter to demonstrate that Christians can reinterpret the Bible’s foundational teachings on the topic.
Because this is such a politically and emotionally-charged topic, it is essential that we approach this issue by first understanding what Scripture has to say about it, regardless of whether Scripture’s stance is considered politically correct or not. However, this does not mean we have to be gratuitously offensive to those who have unbiblical views and lifestyles (if they must be offended, let it be by the truth, not due to a fundamentally unloving heart!).
This is a ringing endorsement of monogamous, lifelong marriage, and an implicit criticism of any alternative arrangements.
Some activists have attempted very creative means to reinterpret the Bible’s passages about homosexuality, arguing that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior per se. However, Christians today must continue to affirm the Bible’s teaching, not only regarding homosexual practice, but the ‘big picture’ teaching about marriage and sexuality presented from Genesis to Revelation, without which the criticism of homosexuality cannot be fully understood.
Male-female complementarity—God’s design
Genesis portrays the Creation of humanity as male and female in God’s image, and the creation of Eve as Adam’s suitable helper. Together, these passages teach us that 1) men and women equally share the image of God, and 2) they were created with distinct roles, and this is particularly evident in the context of marriage. And at the culmination of Genesis 2, we are given the Bible’s first teaching about marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This is a ringing endorsement of monogamous, lifelong marriage, and an implicit criticism of any alternative arrangements. Some have gone so far as to argue that Eve was a "suitable" partner for heterosexual Adam, so a person of the same sex would be likewise "suitable" for a homosexual, yet this idea is clearly not supported in any of the other passages dealing with marriage.
Sin corrupts marriage
Unfortunately, Adam and Eve’s perfect marriage in a perfect paradise didn’t remain perfect for long. When Eve was deceived by the serpent and Adam willingly rebelled by eating the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world, corrupting everything including human relationships. From then on, God told them, they would face the constant temptation to dominate each other, rather than having the harmonious relationship they were meant to have.
As human history progressed, human relationships only became more distorted. Cain’s descendant Lamech was the first recorded polygamist, and an unrighteous man who boasted that he either had killed, or was willing to kill, to avenge himself. He said that while God had promised to avenge Cain sevenfold (perfect retribution), he would be avenged seventy-seven fold!
Fundamentally, all corruption in human relationships, including sexual relationships, is caused by sin. We all have a sin problem. For some, this manifests itself in disordered desire for unsuitable sexual partners (whether people of the same sex, children, or even animals). But there are plenty of sins linked with heterosexuality, whether lust, adultery, rape, or fornication. And because Jesus made it clear that sins committed in the mind are just as bad as those we act upon, no one can claim to be free of sexual sin. We all have a sin problem. And in a sense, homosexual people are correct to claim that they are “born that way”—we all are born sinful, and we all need the same solution.
The sin of Sodom
The first mention, and the first overt condemnation, of homosexuality takes place in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When the angels come to investigate the sinfulness of the people there, it is evident that Lot knows the angels are in danger because of the urgency with which he pleads that they spend the night in his house, and not in the open square. He may have wanted to get them inside before anyone noticed the newcomers, but word had spread to the whole town, and they gathered outside his house that night.
The universality of the description is impossible to miss—all of the men, rich and poor, young and old, gathered outside the house and demanded that Lot give up his guests. They bluntly demanded that Lot bring out his guests so that they could rape them. In that culture, hospitality was a sacred duty, and Lot was obliged to defend his guests, even if it cost his own life. So he goes out and pleads with them, even offering his own daughters instead of his guests. It’s possible he was making a bad choice endangering his daughters, or it’s possible he knew the crowd had no interest in women and he was simply trying to buy time. Either way, the crowd responded by trying to break in, but the angels protected Lot and struck the whole crowd blind.
Most people, if they were suddenly blinded in the commission of a heinous sin, as well as all their accomplices, would at least pause to consider the extraordinary coincidence. But this did not deter them—in fact, the text says that they went on trying to find the door for so long that they wore themselves out! The picture is certainly one of immorality run amok.
Some who want to soften the condemnation of homosexuality say that it was the intended rape, not the homosexuality, that was the sin, and point to Ezekiel 16 for a definition of the ‘actual’ sin of the Sodomites. However, we should not interpret Scripture in such a way to make it contradict itself. Ezekiel gives a fuller picture of the sin of Sodom, without contradicting the story of the city’s destruction:
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it (Ezekiel 16:49–50).
The homosexual sin of Sodom is presented as a culmination of the growing sinful decadence of the city. Lesser sins preceded it, such as refusing to aid the needy when they themselves had more than enough. But the word “abomination” clearly refers to the homosexual sin which resulted in its destruction.
The New Testament also discusses Sodom in a few places:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Peter 2:4–10).
Peter was writing to encourage Christians who were experiencing persecution because of their faith. His argument proceeds:
1. God punished the angels who sinned, and destroyed the world with a global Flood, but preserved Noah and his family.
2. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but preserved righteous Lot; therefore
3. God can keep the unrighteous under judgment and rescue the godly from trials.
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jude was warning his congregation against false teachers, so he gave examples of other people who were judged for unbelief and immorality.
Peter and Jude don’t argue that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked; they assume it based on everything the Old Testament says about them. So the entire testimony of Scripture is that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked cities, and that homosexuality was the sin they were destroyed for.
The sexual ethic of the Mosaic Law
When God rescued the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt, He gave them a Law that served two purposes 1) it revealed important things about God’s character and 2) the laws would forbid them from acting like the surrounding nations and differentiate them as God’s people, a holy nation. And this law included a definite sexual ethic. Adultery was a capital offense. The sorts of sexual cultic acts that would have taken place in the Canaanite religions were absolutely prohibited.
It is in this context of a nation set apart by God that we have to understand the serious nature of God’s law, including the prohibition of, and death penalty for, homosexual activity. Leviticus 18 can be outlined as follows:
Declaration of Yahweh’s authority, command to refrain from the practices of Canaan (1–5).
Prohibiting marriage of close relatives (6–18).
Prohibition of other polluting practices (19–23).
General prohibition, threat of expulsion from land (24–30).
God prohibits those acts because they lead to self-destruction, both physically and spiritually.
The prohibition of homosexual activity is in verse 22, listed between child-sacrifice to Molech and bestiality. It simply says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”. The word for “abomination” is the Hebrew tô‘ēbāh, and it is the same word that Ezekiel uses to describe the homosexual activity in Sodom. Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for this abomination.
Note, this is not an unloving, homophobic law (in fact, it would be extremely anachronistic to apply an idea like ‘homophobia’ to a text written long before there was anything close to today’s concept of ‘sexual orientation’). The whole assumption is that God as both Creator and Israel’s Lord has the right to give the laws for Israel, and that because He is a good Creator and Lord, those laws will be to Israel’s benefit. So God doesn’t prohibit incest and homosexuality because He is a bigot against those who love their relatives and people of the same sex; he prohibits those acts because they lead to self-destruction, both physically and spiritually.
Were David and Jonathan a homosexual couple?
Homosexual interpreters often point to David and Jonathan’s close friendship as a positive biblical portrayal of a gay relationship. First, David and Jonathan were demonstrably not homosexual—both had multiple children, and David had multiple wives. Furthermore, homosexuality can only be read into their relationship by grossly distorting the relevant texts. 1 Samuel 18:1–4 reads:
As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.
First, we have to realize that Scripture, being inspired by God, will not contradict itself by describing positively something that is elsewhere called an “abomination”. So the praiseworthy love that Jonathan showed for David did not have a sexual component. Rather, their friendship was very close and loving in a platonic sense. Jonathan is portrayed as stripping his royal garments, armor, and weapons and giving them to David—this is a recognition of God’s blessing on David and his right to rule.
1 Samuel 20:41 says:
And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most.
In a Middle Eastern context, kissing on the cheek is an appropriate way to show platonic love. This is not a romantic gesture, but a deeply emotional parting of close friends.
In 2 Samuel 1:25b–26, when David learns of the deaths of Saul and his sons, he laments:
Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
This is not speaking of a homosexual relationship; rather, he is saying that Jonathan was his closest friend and confidant, in a way none of his wives were. To read David and Jonathan’s relationship is in fact a sort of homosexual imperialism, an insistence that we view the ancient world through a thoroughly modern context, ignoring the sorts of affection and language that would be accepted and common in a nonsexual friendship.
The Song of Songs: a celebration of marital love
The Song of Songs is one of the strongest statements about the sort of sexual relationship God approves of. The positive portrayal of the relationship of man and wife, veiled with metaphor and figurative language, but sufficiently explicit to portray both the emotional and physical aspects of the relationship, is implicitly a condemnation of every other sort of relationship. One cannot imagine the Bible including a positive depiction of homosexual men reveling in their relationship.
Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality?
One of the most common arguments against the biblical sexual ethic is that Jesus did not say anything against homosexuality. But that ignores the fact that Jesus is a Jew, living in a society that is steeped by the Old Testament, including the passages discussed above. Likewise, Jesus did not mention anything about bestiality, yet no one has argued that He would condone such action. If Jesus had wanted to clarify or to refute a false interpretation of these passages, He had ample opportunity to do so.
But in fact, Jesus’ statements about marriage necessarily exclude same-sex marriage or any sort of homosexual relationship. Matthew 19 and Mark 10 record the same episode. In Jesus’ day, there were two schools rabbinic thought regarding divorce. One thought that a husband could divorce his wife for the most trivial of reasons (much like in the Western world today), and the other thought that he could only divorce her because of serious sins like adultery or other sexual immorality. When they asked Jesus which side He came down on, He challenged the very foundation for their debate. They were reading Moses’ laws regarding divorce as if it was God’s first word on the matter, but Jesus said that “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:6–9).
Jesus’ teaching about marriage is steeped in the Old Testament teachings, and the same Old Testament condemns homosexuality. He did not hesitate to correct the Jews’ misreading of Moses when it came to divorce, but He did not even hint about such a misunderstanding about the prohibition of homosexuality.
Romans: Homosexuality as God’s judgment
In Romans, Paul portrays a downward spiral of sin. He argues that nature gives a clear indication of God’s existence and His power, but that people “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). Rather than worshipping God, they worship idols (v. 23). One of the ways God judges this sin is to give them up to lust (v. 24), including both male and female homosexuality (v. 26–27). This judgment culminates in all sorts of sin, all rooted in their fundamental rejection of God (v. 28). Some activists have argued that the only form of homosexuality that the Bible condemns are abusive forms, such as pederasty (men having sexual relationships with boys) or homosexual acts forced on an unwilling party. Yet clearly they are missing that these passages are referring to people that are “… consumed with passion for one another …” (v. 27).
Vice lists: Homosexuals will be condemned, but there is forgiveness in Christ
There are two vice lists in Paul’s letters, and both are relevant to the discussion of homosexuality.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:3–6).
These lists definitely name homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality (like all sins) are things which exclude a person from the Kingdom of God. But this is not the whole message of either passage. They go on to state:
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).
Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord (Ephesians 5:7–8a).
In other words, Paul is writing to Christians, some of whom used to be slanderers, some of whom were idolators, some of whom were homosexuals and thieves and drunkards. But he doesn’t see any Christian as continuing to engage in that lifestyle because of the transformative power of salvation in Christ.
Marriage: a picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church
One reason it is particularly important to understand God’s will for marriage and sexual relationships is that it is used as a metaphor for Christ’s relationship to the Church. Paul tells the Corinthian church, “…I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ” (11:2), and Revelation 19 describes the marriage of the Lamb to his bride, the Church, dressed in fine white linen.
The metaphor would be ruined if Christ could have taken a bride or a bridegroom, if it didn’t matter whether He had one church or many, or if He might divorce her at some later time. So the most important reason to hold a biblical view of marriage is Christological: to understand Christ’s relationship to His church, we have to have a proper view of the institution that is consistently used as the metaphor to describe it.
So how should a Christian respond?
The issue of homosexuality in today’s culture is not just an intellectual discussion of views, but when we have family or friends that have ‘come out of the closet’, it becomes quite personal. As believers, however, we have to let the Bible determine our response. Rather than anger or reinterpreting the Bible, we should share the good news of the redemption that is only available through Jesus Christ.
As a first step to addressing this issue, we strongly recommend you read our booklet, Gay Marriage: right or wrong? And who decides? (also available in e-book format). This will help give you a biblical, truthful and gentle approach to use with someone you know who might be struggling with same-sex attraction, including Christian families whose children have been affected by cultural views on this subject. Be prayerful and compassionate, remembering that Jesus himself, “while we were yet sinners”, dealt directly with our sin through the power of the cross.
Libertarian and editor of Spiked Brendan O'Neill took issue with Senator Dastyari's comments and said the gay marriage debate had "an ugly, intolerant streak to it".
"Anyone who opposes it is demonised, harassed. We have seen people thrown out of jobs because they criticise gay marriage," he said.
"People are going to traditional cake shops and saying, 'Hey you stupid Christians, make this cake for me'. If they don't, they call the police [and bring] equality cases.
"It is a 21st century form of religious persecution. It is horrendous."
PRESS RELEASE 15th August, 2015
Aboriginal Elders stand strong in culture – Marriage between man and woman is sacred
Over 70 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including senior Elders, travelled from various regions including the Kimberleys, Western Australia and Far North Queensland, to gather at Parliament House yesterday to raise a united Indigenous voice on the ‘Same Sex-marriage issue.’
That voice was presented to the Australian government on a traditional petition named the Uluru Bark Petition and was written in Pitjantijatjara language and in English and signed by a senior Elder of Mutitjulu, a traditional owner of Uluru.
The heart of the Petition states that marriage between man and woman is, and has always been, sacred to the oldest living culture on earth. The Petition adds that fathers and mothers – who are deeply honored in Aboriginal culture – also form the “foundation of our families, clans and systems, and pass down our teachings, our culture, our traditions, from generation to generation.”
As the Uluru Bark Petition is only the second traditional petition ever handed to the Government in the history of Australian Parliament, the receiving of this Petition strongly signifies the importance this stand and declaration has for Aboriginal people across this nation.
Senator Eric Abetz and the newly appointed Aboriginal Senator Joanna Lindgren, who has also signed the Petition, officially received the Uluru Bark Petition from Aboriginal Elders on behalf of the Australian Senate, and in time, shall present the Petition to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.
The various Aboriginal groups, as represented, submitted the Petition to the nation with confidence, stating, “we do not make any stand based on sexuality, but choose to make our stand based on our ancient continuing culture and our understanding of the sacredness of marriage, that unites us all.”
Previously, Aboriginal people did not have a voice, and when we did, we were often misrepresented in the media. Now it is our time to stand up and speak, to be heard, and to be respected. Pitjantijatjara Elder, Yuminia Anyupa Ken from Ernabella, said, “People are saying in our language no, we want man and women married, not man to man and women to women, we do not want.”
The Indigenous Elders who carried this Petition forward, including Auntie Yumina Anyupa Ken and Uncle Pepaii Carol from Ernabella, respect all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups and peoples and acknowledge that they do not speak for their country or language groups.
However, in putting this Petition forward, we recognise and were declaring that, the union between man and women is deeply a part of our ancient and continuing culture across all of our communities, and that our fathers and mothers provide the foundation for those communities.
In this Hour, the Aboriginal people and senior Elders who have put this declaration forth, now invite and call upon the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community as one Indigenous Australia, and all nations, to stand together with us to ensure that the institution of marriage is not redefined, “and in doing so, honour the sanctity of both the tradition of marriage and the spiritual implication of this sacred union” as one between man and woman. (extract from the Uluru Bark Petition). www.ulurubarkpetition.com
For further interviews please contact:
Uluru Bark Petition Media Office
On Monday 10 August over 3000 grassroots Aussies sent flowers to thank the PM for holding the line on marriage as between a man and a woman.
The magnificent bouquet on the left, nearly two metres tall, was delivered to the Prime Minister's office along with a gift box containing the messages of thanks and good will.
During the afternoon there was a steady stream of staffers coming to the display on the lawns of Parliament House to take some 2000 bouquets into the offices of the members in the parliament.
The remaining bouquets were, at the Prime Minister's request, distributed to local hospitals and nursing homes - imagine receiving a special bouquet from the PM!
Our objective was to shift the atmosphere through beauty from argumentative vitriol to civility and honour that respects God and His ways...
God is Over our Nation
This cloud formation appeared in the sky as a representation of the hands of God (palms and 10 fingers visible). It appeared at 10:30 am as we were setting up the flower arrangement.
On the right hand side of the cloud formation the Hebrew letter "Shin" was formed. Shin means El Shaddai or God Almighty. A Jewish Priest forms the letter Shin with his hands when he pronounces the Aaronic blessing.
In this cloud formation the blessing and government of God (Isaiah 9:6) was clearly displayed over the Parliament. As a nation we are blessed as we honour God... but we dare not disobey his authority expressed in Word and Wisdom in his covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.
For more information on marriage please visit our web site: www.christianfederation.net.au
As this article below reveals, a victory for the movement to undermine marriage and family will not end there. They will not be satisfied with that and will try to force all opponents to submit to their humanist religion, with no exception. The law will be used to full effect to make people bow the knee. This is what all tyrants have done throughout history and it looks like we are about to get some first hand experience of this here in our once young and free Australia:
Date August 4, 2015 - 12:00AM
By David Glasgow
Marriage equality increasingly appears inevitable, but its opponents are using religious freedom to undercut the terms of the victory.
Australians should ignore the recent calls to water down our discrimination laws. As the question of same-sex marriage moves from if to when, opponents have shifted their attention to religious freedom.
Lyle Shelton, from the Australian Christian Lobby, argues that same-sex marriage and religious freedom are "incompatible". Adam Ch'ng, a director of Connect Ministry, warns that same-sex marriage places the freedom of faith communities "at risk".
Their strategy is unsurprising. Religious liberty has formed an important part of the campaign against same-sex marriage in the United States for about a decade, and it became the centrepiece after the US Supreme Court granted full marriage equality in June.
Several US states have introduced, or threatened to introduce, laws shielding religious individuals and businesses that object to same-sex marriage. Now, opponents are trying to import the same agenda into Australia.
This is not about the liberty of churches and ministers not to perform same-sex weddings if it violates their faith. That kind of religious freedom is a given, and no bills introduced in Australia have challenged it. The core of the latest religious freedom campaign is the liberty to refuse service.
In an episode of the ABC's Q&A in early June, a Christian calligrapher called for legal safeguards to allow her business to refuse orders for gay wedding invitations. Others, looking again to the US, have raised the spectre of bakers, photographers, florists and reception venues being forced, against their conscience, to serve same-sex couples.
It might appear overwrought to warn of the impending tyranny of gay couples demanding flower arrangements, but there is a beguiling logic to the argument. With a large number of wedding vendors from which to choose, is it not reasonable to allow businesses with religious objections to opt out?
No, it's not.
Australian law prevents service providers from discriminating against customers on grounds such as race, sex or sexual orientation, because we recognise that those attributes should not impede a person's participation in civic life.
We also recognise that placing marginalised groups in the ever-present danger of being turned away is not conducive to building a tolerant and peaceful society, and would reinforce historical patterns of exclusion.
By its nature, discrimination law prevents people from picking and choosing customers according to their beliefs. The law insists, rightly, that to reap the benefits of opening a business to the public, the business must be open on equal terms.
Religious opponents often reply that sexual orientation is not a morally irrelevant characteristic, such as race or sex; it is a controversial behaviour.
Just listen to business owners in the US as they defend their refusal to serve same-sex couples. They argue that their plight is comparable to a synagogue asked to cater a neo-Nazi party, a black DJ asked to spin tunes at a Ku Klux Klan dance, or a Muslim baker asked to bake a cake with a message denigrating the Koran. In a particularly charming illustration, one Colorado baker explained that his unwillingness to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding was no different to his unwillingness to make a "paedophile cake".
Living in a liberal society means that individuals are allowed to hold repugnant views that equate same-sex couples with paedophiles and neo-Nazis. It does not mean there is a free-standing right to opt out of the law when the community as a whole takes a different view.
Some might say that passing a substantial social reform such as marriage equality requires compromise. Isn't it fair enough to make a narrowly targeted exemption applying only to wedding vendors, as long as we leave the rest of discrimination law intact?
The problem is that if you allow businesses to make faith-based conscience claims, there is no principled reason why an exemption should be limited to weddings.
Many religious people object to all homosexual activity and relationships, not just marital ones. If baking a cake makes a business owner complicit in the sin of same-sex marriage, a wide range of activities could make them complicit in the sin of same-sex relationships.
What's to stop an architect from claiming that it violates his or her faith to build a home for a same-sex couple, or a police officer saying the same when asked to keep the peace at a pride march?
These examples might seem fanciful, but we need only look again to the US, where a doctor has refused to treat the child of a lesbian couple, a DJ has declined to work at a gay man's birthday party, and a mechanic has refused to repair vehicles owned by any openly gay person. This is religious liberty on steroids.
As marriage equality increasingly seems inevitable, we must not be complacent. Opponents have learnt from the US that their loss might be assured over the long run, but the terms of their defeat are up for grabs. And they are using religious freedom to launch a rearguard attack.
Australian discrimination law reflects our inclusive society. It respects a diversity of private views, while requiring everyone to play by a fair set of rules in the public square.
Let's keep it that way.
David Glasgow is an associate director and research fellow in the Public Interest Law Centre at New York University School of Law, and an Australian lawyer.
"Anyone who watched ABC1’s Q&A program last night would have seen the anger and intolerance of Greens leader Richard Di Natalie and Labor’s Sam Dastyari. It was chilling.
Their vicious attacks on Katy Faust, a US guest on the program who was raised by lesbians, give us an indication of what is to come if the law ever changes.
By Di Natalie and Dastyari’s reasoning, those of us who argue for children’s rights to know their parents are nothing but bigots.
We all know how society rightly treats bigots. If we want a free society for our children, we had better speak now.
I am told reliably that Katy’s interview with Tony Jones on Lateline last week rated its socks off.
Australians are being denied the other side of the debate, something ABC1’s media watch conceded this week.
If our side is allowed to present its case fairly, there is no reason why our fellow Australians will not be convinced that children need a mother and father and marriage is the most effective way to secure this."
18th August 2015
Call to Action
It is essential to be very well informed on this debate because the consequences of changing the marriage laws are incredibly serious and will impinge on your freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom to practice your faith without persecution. It is not right that the 1% of the population who are SSM activists socially re-engineer the foundations of the family unit to the serious detriment of the rest of society.
Come and hear Ryan Anderson speak on this subject...
Read the article in the current edition of the Woman's Weekly on the case against SSM
Organised by Christian Federation & Australian Family Association, 35 Whitehorse Rd., Balwyn.
Forward: Forward this email.
August 4, 2015 The Prophetic Voice of Chuck Colson
By Eric Metaxas
If you’ve ever wondered what Chuck Colson would say about the way things are going these days, wonder no longer.
A new book, which is landing in bookstores today, warns that we are headed for a new Dark Ages. “Persecution [is] coming to the church soon,” the author warns. “It’s going to happen as a result of conflicts over sex.” He predicts that “the break in the wall is the tax exemption” churches now enjoy. If churches refuse to “marry” homosexual couples, they will lose their exemption.
Who is the author of these predictions? None other than Chuck Colson, who went home to the Lord more than three years ago. That’s three years before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage”—something biologically impossible, by the way.
The book is titled “My Final Word: Holding Tight to the Issues that Matter Most.” It’s a collection of never-before published memos that Chuck sent to his writing staff, reporters, even presidential candidates who wanted his advice. And as the examples I just cited illustrates, Chuck’s writings are incredibly prophetic.
Chuck read widely and had conversations with experts on many subjects. He also had an ability to look at the past and analyze current events in order to predict what was coming. For instance, he notes in one memo that “the entire sixties movement for personal autonomy was over sex.” He quotes Phillip Johnson, who, Chuck writes, argued “that the entire culture war is rooted in sex, and that the destruction of the rule of law itself is traceable to the desire for total sexual freedom.”
A string of Supreme Court decisions provides all the proof we need of our culture’s obsession with sexual freedom: Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Romer v. Evans, and now, of course, Obergefell v. Hodges. All reflect the elevation of sexual freedom and personal autonomy above all other rights—including freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Chuck urged Christians to keep fighting to protect genuine marriage, but he knew the Supreme Court was quite capable of doing what it did in Roe v. Wade: ignoring the Constitution and simply imposing its own opinion about marriage on the entire country.
If that happened, he predicted, our religious liberties would be in the crossfire. As he asked in a memo to one of his writers, “Are [churches] going to be required to perform gay ‘marriages’ when the court rules that marriage is an inherent civil right?” He also pointed out that in Canada and Denmark, “preaching against homosexuality is already a crime.” And in America, he predicted that Christian ministries would be denied federal funds if they refused to hire practicing homosexuals.
What to do about this? Chuck—a former Marine who was known as the toughest of the tough guys in the Nixon White House—did not waver when it came to combating the coming assaults on religious freedom. “We fight every inch of the way,” he writes. “We’re certainly not going to conform—Lord help us! ... The church will have to hold its ground and refuse to knuckle under.”
But, Chuck adds, “We must also prepare ourselves by discipling people to be courageous about proclaiming their faith.” Chuck reminds us of what happened when the German Church gave in to Nazi demands. “It gave Hitler the power he needed. The Barmen Declaration came too late to stop him.”
Having worked for Chuck and having received my share of memos from him, I’m telling you, reading this book is like having him back with us. I hope you’ll go to our online bookstore at BreakPoint.org and get yourself and your friends a copy or two of Chuck’s new book, “My Final Word.” You’ll learn what Chuck had to say about the future of bio-ethics, Islam, persecution, judicial usurpation, and many other issues we’re facing today.
And then you, too, will understand why the church is facing a new Dark Ages—and, more importantly, what we can do about it.
In Holland, the first nation to legalise same-sex marriage more than a decade ago, there were just 522 marriages of gay men in 2013.
“We know same-sex marriage is a low order political issue for Australians. It also seems to be a low order issue for same-sex attracted men.”
Prominent gay fashion designers Dolce and Gababana, are opposed to gay marriage.
“The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed,” they told the UK Telegraph.
Dolce added that procreation “must be an act of love”, saying: “You are born to a mother and a father – or at least that’s how it should be.”
Here in Australia prominent gay activist Denis Altman told the Sydney writer’s festival in 2012:
“I am going to speak as a gay man, one of the things about gay male culture is it is not a monogamous culture… There are many longstanding gay relationships, there are virtually no long standing monogamous gay relationships. I happen to think that is a good thing… I would love to have the people out there arguing for same-sex marriage say ‘let’s be clear, marriage is about primary emotional commitment to another person and it doesn’t mean I won’t f**k around’. And that’s what most of us mean when we talk about our relationships and I think it would be really helpful if the same-sex marriage movement had enough guts to say that.”
The Social Anarchists: "Let's destroy family and marriage first , then we will go for the Bible, Christians and Jews."
By Bill Muehlenberg
Australian Marriage Wars If I were to have entitled this, “Australian Breathing Wars” most folks would have rightly said, “What!?” Why in the world would you fight over breathing? We all breathe, and it is silly in the extreme to even debate it. Yet that is just where we have come to with the issue of marriage and family.
For millennia we simply enjoyed marriage and family, and no one ever questioned these tremendous social goods, nor even dreamed of redefining them out of existence. But we live in bizarre times, where we now actually have to defend marriage and family against their many frenzied attackers.
So we have now had around 16 different bills introduced in Australia to gut the institution of marriage of its very heart. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman becoming husband and a wife, with the possibility of becoming a father and a mother.
That is what marriage is all about. It is a vital social institution which has existed long before the state even recognised it, to provide the best environment for any children conceived through the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is a pro-children institution which keeps spouses connected to each other and parents to their children.
That is what marriage is, and that is what marriage does. So to pretend that two men can marry, or two women, is simply laughable. One might as well argue that two bowling balls can marry, or two sea urchins. Yet the social anarchists are working overtime to destroy marriage and family.
Thus far all the anti-marriage bills have been defeated, yet the activists neither eat nor sleep it seems. They are engaged in a war of attrition, seeking to wear down the other side by the constant bombardment of parliament with frivolous and time-wasting bills like this.
The latest, Bill Shorten’s private members’ bill, was offered in June, but is now back in the spotlight, following the US Supreme Court decision. Federal Labor not only has various homosexuals in its ranks, but has homosexual marriage as official party policy.
Instead of concentrating on the really vital issues of the day, be it health, or education, or national defence, the Labor party is again wasting our time with fake marriage. Their recent policy decision to allow a free vote on this is mere politics, as I explained elsewhere: billmuehlenberg.com/2015/07/27/the-australian-sodomy-party/
And of course it is a very temporary situation, with complete conformity soon to be the only option for hapless Labor MPs. So the pressure has been on Tony Abbott and the Coalition to deviate from their official policy (marriage being between a man and a woman only) and allow a conscience vote, in the hopes that the numbers will go the way of the activists.
Well, after a heated six-hour meeting yesterday, the Libs have voted to stay with their pro-marriage policy, and not have a free vote. As one news item put it:
The coalition party room has decided not to allow a free vote on same sex marriage. MPs voted against a conscience vote following a marathon six-hour joint party room meeting in Canberra tonight. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: “There was strong support for the existing position … that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Mr Abbott said. He said roughly 60 MPs supported existing position, while 30 called for a conscience vote after a six-hour joint party room meeting.
The actual numbers were 66 in favour and 33 against. So this is a great win, but of course only a temporary win. Many from our side are cheering this outcome. And so we should. But it is merely one small battle in a much bigger, protracted war.
If we think for a moment that the other side will now simply shut up and go home, we are deluding ourselves. Indeed, the pressure is right back on the Prime Minister. Yet another bill, this time a cross-party bill put forward by Liberal Warren Entsch is still threatening to derail the party and allow the destruction of marriage.
So far Mr Abbott has stood strong, threatening any higher-up Libs with demotion if they cross the floor and vote for this. One news story describes the situation as follows:
Coalition frontbenchers who defy the agreed position to oppose gay marriage will be sacked, Tony Abbott says.
The Prime Minister this morning said if maverick MP Warren Entsch’s cross-party bill to legalise same-sex marriage did come to a vote in the parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries who voted for it would be demoted. “It is nevertheless the standard position of our party that if a frontbencher cannot support the party’s policy, that person has to leave the frontbench,” Mr Abbott told ABC radio….
Queensland Liberal National MP Warren Entsch who has pushed for marriage equality says he believes several of his colleagues will cross the floor to vote in favour of his same-sex marriage bill should it come to a vote. “I think there will be a handful of people on my side that will vote for this,” Mr Entsch told News Corp Australia this morning. “Absolutely I will be crossing the floor. But even with some support I don’t think the support is there to see it succeed.”
Bill Shorten of course jumped on all this, trying to scare the electorate with the claim that Abbott will never change on this. I hope he is right – he should never change on something as fundamental as this. And contrary to what Shorten thinks, I believe the majority of Australians would side with Abbott.
That is why if push comes to shove, a referendum should be held on this matter. As should be well-known, referendums for radical change do not go down well with most Australians, being handily defeated time and time again. Indeed, only 8 out of 44 referendums have gone through in the past century. The two most recent ones (which were both defeated) were held in 1999.
The lesser-used method of the plebiscite (usually non-binding and with optional voting) might also be on offer here:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has thrown an olive branch to supporters of same-sex marriage, announcing the Coalition will look at holding a referendum or plebiscite on same-sex marriage to solve the issue once and for all.
While confirming that the Coalition party room had decided to keep binding MPs on same-sex marriage by a clear majority on Tuesday, Mr Abbott also said that the party had not “finalised a position to take to the next election”.
“We have finalised a position for the duration of this term,” he told reporters in a snap late-night press conference at Parliament House. In comments that set same-sex marriage up as a key election battleground next year, Mr Abbott also made a plea to voters who both support and oppose the reform.
“I think I can say arising out of today is that if you support the existing definition of marriage between a man and a woman, the Coalition is absolutely on your side but if you would like to see change at some time in the future, the Coalition is prepared to make that potentially possible,” he said.
TV stations 7 and 10 in Australia decided on Thursday 6th August to prevent the pro-marriage side of the national debate on marriage from airing an advertisement on their TV stations. Even though they had the money to pay and the advert was far from offensive to homosexuals. It just didn't fit with the main stream medias pro-homosexual stance. Freedom is fast disappearing in Australia as in the US.
Please Speak Up Australia. Defend children and freedom. Say NO to the proposition to change marriage laws.
In accordance with s 6(5) of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017, this communication was authorised by Craig Manners of Ngumbe, Malawi.
The Freedom Files