The Ad SBS Refused To Air

Last Saturday, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster SBS refused to air an advertisement critical of same-sex marriage in an act described as “blatant political censorship“. The ad, which was broadcast on Channels 7 and 9, was booked and paid for prior to being pulled by SBS management and had received regulatory approval.

Dr David Van Gent, President of the Australian Marraiage Forum, made the following comments:

This is suppression of free speech on a matter of public importance. It is outrageous for a taxpayer funded broadcaster like SBS to apply censorship to one side of the debate on same-sex marriage. SBS is funded by taxpayers on both sides of the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate”. SBS broadcasts hours of the Mardi Gras protest march, free of charge, with its ‘Australian Marriage Equality’ float and other political themes. The Chief of the Mardi Gras Parade, Michael Rolik, specifically highlighted ‘marriage equality’ as one of the rally’s targets for legislative change. SBS gives free airtime for them to make their political point on ‘marriage equality’, but refuses to show even one minute of a paid ad presenting an opposing view. SBS gave us no reason for their last-minute decision…I see that SBS has its own float in this year’s Mardi Gras Parade, and I also see that the SBS slogan is ‘Diversity works’. But clearly they cannot work with any diversity of opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage”

Senator David Leyonhjelm, who introduced the Bill for Same Sex Marriage into the Federal Senate, and Senator Dean Smith, another supporter of the legislation, have both condemned the decision , as has Australian Human Rights’ Commissioner Tim Wilson.

The SBS Charter specifically calls on it to “present many points of view”

Here is the controversial ad:


So what do you think? Should SBS have censored this ad?


Why liberals should oppose same-sex marriage

197515_108482069234461_1417439_nWith such a provocative title, many people on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate shall likely be upset, but there should be no apologies for stating the facts, writes Michael Smyth

People have made the comment that Marriage is not exclusively a religious institution, but while this may be technically correct, it is a highly disingenuous statement.  A friend of mine has pointed out that in the old Roman Republic, the State presided over ceremonies, but what he failed to point out – possibly out of genuine ignorance of history and the institution of the Cursus Honorum – is that the ceremonial head of the republic (or in modern political parlance, paramount leader) was an official known as the Pontifex Maximus.  This Pontifex was head of all of the religions within the Roman Republic/Empire, and as such, when Constantine the Great converted to Christianity, Christianity was included in those religions which he presided over as Pontifex Maximus.  This demonstrates that the State only authorised marriages permitted under those religions, not to mention the fact that Roman Law only recognised marriages between male and female Roman citizens.


[NB It is important to distinguish and recognise the differences between same-sex unions and marriages, with the formality of the institution of the latter as contrasted to the former, which lacked de jure formality or recognition]. 

If you look eastward to India, the system was different from the Roman model, but under the caste system the military rulers had to submit themselves to the religious authorities, i.e. the Brahmin caste.  The rulers had no authority without the blessing of the Brahmin's, and if they lost the Brahmin's support they would have no kingdom. Even recently, a homosexual aristocrat has been outed by his mother and disinherited from his title.

If you look at China, you see the system of the "Middle Kingdom" was that presided over by the "Son of Heaven", meaning that he was the religious leader of the nation as well as political potentate.  In reality, every ancient civilisation that existed had no concept of a separation between religious and secular affairs.  The King was also a priest, or in the cases above, subservient to the religious establishment. 

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that marriage is a State-based institution, when ancient polities were so tightly interwoven with religion it was almost impossible to distinguish between the two. 

Interestingly enough, and this will pique the attention and interest of post-modern Secularists who can't stand Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) – it was Jesus of Nazareth, whose revolutionary statement of "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God", laid the basis of the idea of the separation of "Church and State". 

Despite the teachings of Christ, the Church that rose to propagate the faith was co-opted into the apparatus of the Roman Empire (after having been persecuted for centuries), as one of the religions of the Empire.  It was only after the Reformation, and the subsequent Enlightenment, that Christians started to take heed of the words "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God".

The State was thus separated from the government, but the religious liberties were guaranteed, except in Jacobin France, where aristocrats and clergy were murdered by the thousands during the Reign of Terror, and the State assumed responsibilities for marriage.  When religion was restored in France, civil marriages remained.

In the United Kingdom, the separation of Church and State was a bit more tenuous, given that the Sovereign was also Governor of the Church in England (as well as Scotland and Ireland), but laws were put in place to effectively sever the ties between the Church and State, and to protect the rights of those other minorities who did not share the official faith of the United Kingdom.

Here is a point that both liberals and progressives forget: in the Islamic world, there has never been a separation of Islam from the State.  The head of state (usually a Sultan, Emir, or other Prince) has also been a de facto spiritual leader, and in the Ottoman Empire the Emperor was both Sultan *and* Caliph (i.e. Successor to the Prophet Mohammed) – no separation of Religion there.  Nor was there anywhere else, for that matter.

Liberals, with all of their good intentions, point out that we should extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.  Let's take all of the religious arguments out of the equation, because this debate should not revolve around religion.  Let us consider, however, the precedent of marriage, and why secular states have not hitherto considered same-sex marriage. 

Same-sex marriages do not produce children, unless you want to adopt, and that is an entirely different discussion.  Same-sex marriages do not provide any material benefit to society as a whole.  Granted, they probably would not provide a material disadvantage either, but Marriage exists within the State to provide continuation of the State, not to allow people to make life-altering decisions on a whim. It is important to note, that even in societies that permitted or even encouraged homosexuality, the institution of marriage was always exclusively heterosexual, i.e. for the purpose of continuing society.

What is wrong with Civil Unions? There is nothing wrong with Civil Unions being extended to same-sex couples, especially since it would shore up the claim of the significant other in the event of death (and absence of a will).  In fact, de facto couples already have some legal standing when it comes to claiming property after only six months.  Marriage however, has been defined by both Religions and States as being "between a man and a woman" – until very recently, where that has been revised.

If other countries have revised it, why shouldn't we? Let's look at the countries or states where revision has occurred.  Religious ministers/priests have faced litigation for refusing to conduct ceremonies that go against the tenets of their religion. 

Massachusetts has had cases of ministers being sued, so there goes that religious liberty of being able to act consistently with their religion.  The Lutheran Church in Denmark is forced to find a priest to perform same-sex marriages, if the first priest refuses. More recently, a same-sex couple in the United Kingdom has threatened to sue the Church for refusing to marry them. What happened to religious liberty? Remember the second part of the quote, "Render unto God what belongs to God". 

There was a policy motion moved at the 2012 YLNP Convention, to grant all couples (regardless of orientation) the ability to have a civil union, but strip from the State all powers pertaining to "Marriage", thus returning it to the religious organisations.  At the time, I spoke in favour of this motion because I believed it to be a sensible accommodation not only of religious liberties, but also of those couples who wish to enjoy the functional benefits of being "married", without having to go to church/synagogue/mosque/temple.

There is also the fact that the existence of a Will establishes the intentions of the author of a Will. Freddie Mercury left a Will that bestowed his property in the United Kingdom and some money to his same-sex life partner, and the partner received everything that he was bequeathed. They didn’t require same-sex marriage, or even Civil Partnerships, to outline their wishes and legacies. People should have a Will, but I digress.

No liberal should ever support something that would crush the liberty/liberties of another.  What about the rights of the couple? No, marriage is not a right.  Marriage is a contract that you enter into, after serious consideration, under the auspices of the organisation offering marriage, and an imperative institution for the continuation of society.  But the State offers marriage.  Civil "Marriage", yes – it is essentially a Civil Union, regardless of the orientation of the couple. 

This debate seems to be over one crucial word.  For the Gay lobby to insist that religious organisations relinquish their rightful premium on marriage, and allow same-sex marriage (while refusing to settle for the legislatively equal "Civil Union") is selfish. 

Most people would be happy or indifferent if homosexuals could have civil unions, and the religious could retain marriage for themselves. You shouldn’t change the meaning of a word that has meant the same thing for over 5,000 years on a whim, especially not if the vast majority of nations and societies have retained the meaning.

Both sides could still have what they want, if only the Gay lobby would compromise, and for those readers who think it is only Christians standing in the way of same-sex marriage, think again. No religion has ever extended the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, even in societies that permit or encourage homosexuality.

Michael Smyth writes from Brisbane, Queensland

Rudd – a deeply religious man?


by Jim McCrudden

Kevin Rudd outshone shabbiness last night when he attacked a pastor on Q&A for saying that homosexual marriage was wrong.

He had the trivial smartarse response ready that the Bible also approved slavery, so the Bible wasn't always a good guide.

That wisecrack has been around for yonks and persists in left, secular, and homosexual publications. 

The Tele reported the incident while saying that Rudd was a "deeply religious" man.

That sort of thing sits very uneasily with the public perception of Rudd over the knifing of Julia Gillard. It might be politics but it was not the actions of a "deeply religious"man. And it sits uneasily with the con job he pulled over Abbott's costings, it might be politics but promoting a bare-faced lie is not the action of a "deeply religious" man.

And it is not the action of a "deeply religious" man to take the issue of slavery, about which he either knows from nothing, or is fully aware that the Bible does not support slavery. So is he ignorant, or is he playing to the gallery – following Shakespeares warning to Bassanio "the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose."

It is a common sleazy point in debate when someone quotes the Bible for a position to come back with some superficial and deceitful remark, "The bible also says…" In fact gay marriage literature frequently comes back with the "slavery" argument which suggests that the "deeply religious" Rudd draws inspiration from that well.

One central plank of the Bible is that all men and women are created equal, and as the US constitution puts it are endowed with life and liberty.  That constitutional statement was taken from the Bible. It was a significant issue in the civil war there. It is a significant element in Christian Churches condemnation of "slavery" as we now know it. 

In  Exodus at the very beginning it states "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Slavery as we know it was punishable by death.

One of the apostles Timothy had this to say "law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, …for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

Furthermore, "slavery" within the Old Testament context is a very slippery concept. People would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt.  A convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a "slave" to pay off his debt. This form of "slavery" was still in existence until comparatively recently.  Benjamin Franklin worked for no charge to pay off his father's debts to a farmer.

In any case, reporting  and recognising is not the same thing as endorsing. 

The Prime Minister must have been salivating for someone to denounce same-sex marriage as not being in the Bible. A great chance for a trivial one-liner while enabling him to preach about tolerance and explain how he has twisted away from his earlier position.


Redefining marriage isn’t a vote winner in Blair


Blair MP Shayne Neumann isn’t on board with his leader Kevin Rudd on samesex marriage. Or as he told The Queensland Times, “Last time I voted against samesex marriage when the legislation came before the House of Representatives…and I haven’t changed my position. I canvassed the electorate widely with 700 people getting back to me…and 585 were opposed to samesex marriage and 115 were in favour. I sat on the committee that looked at the legislation…and I was unconvinced by the arguments. If the same legislation came before the house again I wouldn’t change my mind.” 

In key battlegrounds such as the southern Queensland seat of Blair, Rudd’s pontifications on samesex marriage could cost Labor votes, especially among serious Christians. After all, when 83.57% of your respondents oppose “gay marriage” you can’t just wish them away.

What’s more, voters across Australia don’t rate “gay marriage” as a toppriority issue. Indeed, this month, ABC’s Vote Compass found that the most important issues to Australians are as follows: the economy, asylum seekers (read border security), health and hospitals, climate change, education, broadband, trust, taxes, workplace relations, food security, NDIS (disability care), manufacturing, defence, childcare, transport, and mining. 

Social researcher Mark McCrindle believes that some groups are likely to see Kevin Rudd’s “gay marriage” stand as an elitist distraction. When you have unemployed or underemployed tradeies, for example, struggling to find work in the outer suburbs, Labor’s focus on redefining marriage looks out of touch. “It symbolises all that they don’t like about the government that is, distracted into symbolism and not governing on the issues that make a difference to them.” 

The respected commentator Gerard Henderson has also expressed concerns in relation to faith matters. “It is unlikely that evangelical Christians or mainstream Catholics will be impressed by Rudd’s conversion to samesex marriage. The same is true for Muslims who are an increasing influence in Western Sydney. Abbott’s enthusiastic reception in Lidcombe last week, at the end of Ramadan, was underreported in the media. It should have been of concern to Labor.”

But back to Blair. Why is the PM more interested in serving gaymarriage activists in innercity suburbs than Blair’s workingclass families? It just seems foolish, arrogant even. Still, Kevin Rudd says he doesn’t want to look like a “family dinosaur” in front of his children and wife. It’s all about him.

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 

Numbers don’t warrant political fuss

ImagesGay marriage – Rudd’s only debate promise  


Bertel Torsten in Canberra

Last week (“Gay marriage – not a guarantee”) I wrote about the gay marriage issue which crosses the major party divide and showed what a divisive issue it was. Strong and opposing views are held by individuals within the same party and, demonstrably, this issue is one which could lose as many votes as it might win.

In the leaders’ debate on Sunday night, the only new promise that PM Rudd made was that his re-elected government would, within its first one hundred days, bring forward legislation to allow for same sex marriage.

When this issue was raised, tweets hit a peak of 1,952 per minute at 7.25 AEST. It was Rudd’s only moment of transient glory.

Australians, he contended, were crying out for gay marriage. So critical, so fundamental and so important this issue is, he said, that it had to be decided within the first hundred days of the new Parliament.

It must have come as a great surprise to those sitting at home thinking about the cost of living, the economy, illegal immigration, education and other really boring issues. Abbott refused to rise to the bait and remained circumspect saying that the Coalition would decide the issue after the election although he did agree that it was an important issue.

Yet even in Rudd’s own Queensland and inside his own lovingly loyal ALP, gay marriage is not a burning issue and, given the PM’s monumental ego, he must wonder why his conversion to advocacy for the issue has not been embraced by all of his colleagues. No doubt, he considers them out of step with the public view which is always his view, of course.

According to the major lobby group pressing for the change, Australian Marriage Equality (AME), Queensland Labor MPs opposed to gay marriage include his ex best friend Wayne Swan, Senate President John Hogg, Shayne Neuman, Yvette D’Ath and Craig Emerson. One presumes, since that is their only purpose in life, AME knows what it is talking about.  

Senator John Hogg has said, “I have a deep-seated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively”, former Minister Craig Emerson has stated, “My view is that marriage is between a man and a woman” while Senator Mark Furner went so far as to address a National Marriage Day rally outside Parliament last year declaring that same-sex marriage advocates had “highjacked” the debate by claiming that gay marriage equalled equality. He said those who opposed the idea “have a right to stand up.”

Shayne Neuman is on the record as saying that he does “not believe there is anything like sufficient community consensus which would justify change to such a fundamental societal institution as marriage.”

Rudd’s new best friend, former Labor Premier Peter Beattie, came out (as it were) in December, 2011, in favour of gay marriage and urged the impending ALP National Conference to endorse the concept – which it did. However, the canny Beattie did recognise that such as endorsement had the potential to damage then PM Gillard’s leadership. Beattie has been around long enough to recognise a political issue time bomb. 

Previously, Rudd had said he would consider a referendum on the issue. That now seems to have been junked.

In fact, the AME National Director, Rodney Croome, warned against any such referendum saying, “We fear cashed-up opponents of gay marriage would exploit a referendum to polarise the electorate and demonise gay and lesbian people in a way that would impact badly, particularly on young people.” It seems Mr Croome worries that a majority of Australians might not actually vote “yes” in such a referendum because of some presumed scare campaign.  

According to Croome, “A recent poll by the Australia Institute shows marriage equality is one of the top priorities of voters aged 18 to 24” and, in fact, he is absolutely right. However to say that, he also tacitly admitting also that it is not the number one issue even for that age group and not a top priority of any other age group at all.

And, let us remember, even if this promise does have some appeal to young voters, the cold hard fact is that this is the age group that is more likely not to be on the roll and, even if they are, are more likely not to actually vote.

So much for Rudd’s desperate sense of urgency – the “one hundred days” promise.

At least we can be grateful that it is one of the very, very few things Rudd has promised that won’t blow out his mounting deficit any further.

The gay vote – not a guarantee


by Bertel Torsten in Canberra

A few days ago, the ALP Deputy Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Barr, urged his party to make same sex marriage an election issue, claiming that it could help Labor win seats.

Barr, who is openly gay, identified specifically the seats of Brisbane, Denison, Melbourne and Melbourne Ports. According to his website, one of his “proudest achievements” was in 2011 when, with Finance Minister Penny Wong – also openly gay – he successfully moved a motion at the ALP National Conference supporting gay marriage.

A lot of nonsense has been written about the so-called “gay community” and there seems to be in some circles almost a presumption that they do, and will, vote for candidates who support gay marriage. It completely ignores the fact that gay people are much like everybody else and that their concerns are about rather more practical issues like the economy, the refugee issue, health issues and the like.

Prime Minister Rudd said back in May before his recycling that he had had his road to Damascus moment and now supported gay marriage. In a transparent attempt to collar the “gay vote”, Rudd has said he will consider a referendum if Abbott does not allow a free vote of his Parliamentary Members and Senators.

There has been an attempt to portray Abbott as an intransigent bigot on this issue – yet there was no similar attempt to paint then PM Julia Gillard in the same way despite the fact that their views happened to coincide. The political agenda is clear.

Back in May, that Abbott described as a “significant evolution” his announcement that the Liberal party room would decide the issue after the election. Abbott’s openly gay sister Christine Forster, who is in a same-sex relationship, has spoken publicly of the support and love she has received from him.

When Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce crossed the floor in June to support a Greens Bill to recognise gay marriages performed overseas, Abbott refused to admonish her saying, “ … people on our side of the political fence have always had the right – if they feel strongly enough about something – to make their own decision.”

Liberal MPs who have announced their support for gay marriage include, apart from Boyce, Kelly O’Dwyer, Malcolm Turnbull, Wyatt Roy and Simon Birmingham. 

To further blur the lines about just who supports what, the only openly gay Liberal MP, West Australian Senator Dean Smith, has said that while he supports a conscience vote, he does not support the principle of gay marriage. He holds the traditional view of what marriage is and should be which must be infuriating for gay marriage advocates because they can hardly lampoon him as a bigot.

Other high profile Liberal supporters of gay marriage include the NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, and Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Robert Doyle.

Inside the ALP, there are also very significant differences of view despite the 2011 National Conference decision. The Greens’ Bill that saw Boyce cross the floor in the Senate also saw a fair number of Labor Senators voting against.

When the House of Representatives cross-party Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee reported last month on the issue, Chair and Labor MP Graham Perret said, “It was not an inquiry to determine the merits of same sex marriage…” and that it was a matter for the Parliament. Two Labor members of the Committee – Shayne Neumann and Mike Symon – said, “We do not believe there is anything like sufficient community consensus which would justify change to such a fundamental societal institution as marriage.” 

The assertion that making gay marriage is a seat-winning election issue for the ALP, one only has to look at the four seats identified by Andrew Barr to show the bankruptcy of this claim. 

He must have forgotten that Melbourne Ports is already an ALP seat held by Michael Danby who has flip-flopped on the issue, abstaining in September 2012 on the gay marriage issue, justifying it as a decision “primarily about politics”. Subsequently he has said he is in favour, “You can call it political expediency, I call it political gravitas or timing,” he said.

He is facing an openly gay Liberal candidate and gay marriage advocate so, presumably, determined supporters of gay marriage should vote for him.

Melbourne is held by Greens MP Adam Bandt and his party has been a strident advocate for gay marriage. If Barr thinks the ALP could “out gay” Bandt and win the seat on that basis, he is dreaming

The Independent MP for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, as far back at October 2010, declared that Labor and Coalition opposition to gay marriage was “a breakdown in democracy”

The Liberal MP for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro, said back in November 2010, “Same sex couples rightfully demand the practical benefits and social respect that heterosexual couples enjoy. I believe those in my electorate would demand such equal rights are adhered to and I support the views of the community in relation to any proposed changes to the specific definition of marriage.”    

Gay marriage is a divisive issue, a conscience issue, and if any major party agreed with Barr’s view and made it an election issue it would be anything but a vote winner.

The Silly Putty Polly


Kevin Rudd thinks that he can recreate himself simply by supposing it to be so.

It is the same as sitting in a garage and whispering, “I’m an Alfa Romeo, I’m an Alfa Romeo, I’m an Alfa Romeo, Brmmm, Brmmm, BRMMM!”

Julia Gillard is similar. She morphs from time to time into new personas, the last two changes made with the aid of very simple props – specs.

In New Julia with Specs #1 she was the steely eyed, jaw jutting defiant Julia, Destiny’s Mistress and re-incarnation of Catherine the Great.

In New Julia with Specs#2 she was the soft Julia. Granny Julia in a comfy chintzy chair bathed in subdued lighting with Vaseline smeared over the lens; peacefully knitting with that sleepy happy look that is only seen on the face of one who has downed a couple of Mandies with a full bottle of Chivas Regal.

Rudd probably taught her this Jedi mind trick.

When Rudd did his first Dance of the Seven Veils he displayed himself as, in his words, an “old-fashioned Christian Socialist.”

ALP-Bitter-TonicMy – an old-fashioned Christian Socialist!

This was the stuff to give the troops, a phrase to unite the Party. Translated, they heard, “I am a true socialist, awful smart, but humbled and softened by Christian teachings, you know, dignity of the individual, sanctity of life, and stuff, and all that. I am Socialism with a kindly, blokey face.”

In those old days he did TV interviews just leaving church after morning service, he was the Ruddeemer.

But that was when he was relatively unknown. He had not become leader of the Labor Party and, more particularly he had not led Labor to electoral victory. 

After that event, he very quickly distanced himself from the “socialist” part of Christian socialism. Socialism, he said soon after the election, is an out-dated 19th century policy that has no value in today’s world.

What? That fast???

Well, now that Socialism’s gone, what about the Christian bit?

Well, just two months ago while quoting Hamlet to show the depth of his sincerity (to thine own self be true) he suddenly announced that he was all in favour of Gay Marriage.

Gay Marriage is hardly one of the pedestals of Christianity, particularly the flavour he likes – the “old fashioned” one. So one must wait to see how he reconciles it. So far he has gone the secular route – if two men love one another blah blah.

During the Kevin 07 campaign he dropped socialism altogether. No, now he was an “economic conservative”. He was the scourge of “neo-liberals”, Howard was “mean” and all Rudd’s speeches were larded with words like “kind” and “compassionate” and “warm” and “open hearted”.

A bit like the speech he made in parliament after the lynching of Julia Gillard, when he urged politicians to be nice to each other.

What he was doing then he is doing still. He is sitting in Julia’s old-fashioned chair humming to himself, “I am an kindly intellectual, I am an kindly intellectual,” then announcing publicly that if the voters elect him they virtually will get a much kinder version of Tony Abbott. One who listens, one who cares? So there is no need to vote for Abbott – vote for Kev and get prosperity with decency.

And government by kind hearted union bosses?

But there is hope. A strait jacket costs less than a hundred bucks.

Jim McCrudden is a retired lawyer, an avid admirer of Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. He lives on the NSW South Coast, has a keen interest in politics and sits on local government.

Gay marriage obsession – losing momentum?


Beyond the euphoria of Gay Marriage supporters, inconvenient statistics remain – rarely reported. Ben-Peter Terpstra explains. GC.Ed.@L.

The media-approved seven per cent

Clearly, the world isn’t as pro-gay marriage as Australia’s establishment media. With only 14 of the world’s 195 nation states allowing same-sex partners to marry, your average “gay marriage” state belongs to an experimental minority. We’re talking eccentric social-engineering islands. Together, they make up the seven per cent.

So your average gay-marriage state looks like…? In short, the sociological answer is…very white.  Such nations tend to be relatively small, overwhelmingly Caucasian, and frighteningly bureaucratic. Think, legalistic Belgium for a good example. 

Nevertheless, media elites boast that gay-marriage nations are “ahead of history,” implying that white-majority nations are morally superior, even inherently enlightened (a curious position for self-styled multiculturalists to hold). 

So, are they? Are the Belgians more evolved than, say, the Japanese, even though Japan can boast of lower separation/divorce rates and fewer designer fatherless families?

For the record, there are no gay-marriage Asian states and only one in Africa (South Africa) where the sexist institution of polygamy is legal.  Therefore, this does point to a level of establishment media ignorance.

Curiously, same-sex marriage first became legal in the Netherlands on April Fools’ Day of 2001. At the time it was said that marriage-hungry gays would rush to organise massive weddings creating huge pink markets. Or as activist Henk Krol, the editor-in-chief of Gay Krant magazine enthusiastically predicted, “10-15 percent of all marriages in 2001 – more than 10,000 – will be by gay couples.”

Krol was wrong. In fact, around 2,500 gay couples married that year and gay-marriage declined in popularity soon after. 

A handful of cosmopolitan American states have also selectively redefined marriage. Yet, even in liberal New York, same-sex marriage isn’t proving popular. As Doug Mainwaring, a self-identified homosexual against gay-marriage, says, a “shoe sale at Macy’s would produce a bigger stampede” than gay-marriage applicants in NYC. 

Placing little value on freedom of speech and religious liberty, your typical gay-marriage nation is hardly compassionate either. Consider Canada. There, an intolerant secular fundamentalism is harshly applied. As Bradley W. Miller, an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and a Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University points out: religious groups have been fined for refusing to host post-wedding celebrations, poor and “uneducated” citizens with politically-incorrect views have been subjected to investigations by so-called human rights commissions, disobedient thinkers have been ordered to pay fines and even critical-thinking teachers can be punished for expressing pro-traditional marriage opinions outside of work. “Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks,” warns Miller. 

As well, the seven per cent nations have lopsided priorities. For example, in the Netherlands, two men can legally marry but it’s still dangerous to hold hands in public where Islamist street gangs run wild. And, in South Africa, petrified lesbians live in legitimate fear of witchcraft-inspired “corrective rape” rapists. 

Incidentally, Mainwaring predicts a future backlash against same-sex marriage in the U.S., a backlash that has already taken off in France. As Mainwaring argues, gay-marriage fever will pass, and not without reason. Fevers often do. Indeed, in France, opposition to designer fatherless and motherless families is uniting Muslims, Christians, Orthodox Jews and anti-gay marriage gays against big government socialist politicians. 

Built on a weak foundation, today’s counterfeit marriage movement is often enabled by judicial activists, flip-flopping politicians, campaigning journalists and opinion polls with lead questions. Opposite-sex marriage, by way of contrast, has thousands of years of time-honoured wisdom behind it, not to mention Islam and Christianity (two massive world faiths).  

As critical thinkers, we need to ask ourselves: how sustainable is the genderless soul mate theory of marriage in the long-term? What happened to media equality is another important issue.

Postscript: In underreported news, a bid to redefine marriage in Northern Ireland has failed. In Colombia too, same-sex marriage was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 51-17.

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.

 His blog: B.P. Terpstra.


British MPs back gay marriage

BRITISH MPs have voted in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's own party.

The move puts Britain on track to join the 10 countries that allow same-sex couples to marry, but Mr Cameron had the embarrassment of seeing half of his Conservative legislators refusing to back him.

Read more:

Wombs for rent, ten bucks a day


Knee-jerk reaction laws intended to placate minorities usually incurs collateral damage. But unintended consequences cannot and should not be excused when it comes to fulfilling irresponsible dreams for parenthood. Children are not puppies to be returned to the pet shop when they become inconvenient. Their minds and bodies are a lifetime commitment. GC.Ed.

One aspect of proposed same-sex marriage legislation is slowly percolating into the room like the smell that nobody admits to.
The fact is that homosexual males who want to be fathers need a young woman to be a surrogate mother.
Where will these women come from?
There is another kind of legislation or law at work here – the Law of Supply and Demand – a law that applied before the Egyptians, and which has never been repealed. And the answer to the question is – wherever the wombs are cheapest.
Of course, there are other aspects – there has to be good medical attention, state-of-the-art gynecological services.
Of course, of course.
And there is a place where the wombs are cheapest, where doctors are
available, where laws are elastic.
They may have a s’house cricket team, but they have doctors experienced in IVF – and millions and millions of impoverished young women.
The surrogate motherhood industry in India is worth well over $2 billion
a year, and growing.

The users of the industry from the west pay one-fifth the cost they would pay in England or the US or Australia to have the mother carry the child.
The mum gets about $2000 to $4000, depending on what organisers can bargain for.
There is no mention in the stats of what happens if the child is born blind, or with Down’s Syndrome. The guess is that the ‘problem’ is detected
early and the baby disposed of. Which means that the young mother can try again – maybe.
It is reported that at least some of the IVF clinics are preparing for an increase in demand when legislation in the US and Australia and Israel comes into force which gives homosexuals full adoption rights.
Although it can, and is, done now, there is a kind of delay because the
homosexuals seem to be waiting for a redefinition of “marriage”. A
spokesman for the Fertility Institutes of Las Vegas and Los Angeles
which uses American women as surrogates reports that every time there is
agitation in the press for homosexual marriage, his phone bill goes up.
So much that he advises that they are seriously thinking of cost-cutting and outsourcing the job of surrogacy.
To Mexico.
Where there are a lot of poor young women as well.
Another unreported issue is how the young women feel about the fact that their baby girl or baby boy will be brought up in a homosexual household.
Of course, with modern enlightened views, and clear recognition that
liberal philosophy is here to stay, and anti-discrimination laws, and school curriculums that teach the normalcy of homosexual relations, it
is expected that the Indian and Mexican girls will be very happy with
the forward-looking new-age attitudes in this issue, and will not raise
the slightest objection, or have the least misgivings.
Especially since they can make up to $3000 for taking on what can be a risky and dangerous job.
Maternal deaths in childbirth in the west range from 3.0 per 100,000
(Italy) to 17 per 100,000 (US). Australia is 5 per 100,000.
The figure for India is 250 per 100,000.
That is an average, of course, and not in the IVF clinics. It is perfectly safe there.
Of course, of course.

im McCrudden is a retired lawyer, an avid admirer of Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. He lives on the NSW South Coast, has a keen interest in politics and sits on local government.