MEDIA RELEASE
For release: June 8, 2011
The Australian Christian Lobby has urged caution in accepting the homosexual lobby’s claim that same-sex marriage is inevitable.
The latest poll commissioned by same-sex marriage advocates gives the desired result without a debate about the consequences of redefining marriage in our culture, Australian Christian Lobby Chief of Staff Lyle Shelton said.
“Asking people whether they think it’s inevitable the law will change is a loaded question and is not the same as whether they understand the implications of legalising same-sex marriage,” he said.
“While Australia is obviously different from America, the debate about same-sex marriage has been going on there longer.
“Despite this, in every state where same-sex marriage has been put to the people in a referendum, it has been defeated even in very liberal states such as California and Maine.
“Once people focus on what redefining marriage might mean for normalising the idea of the state decreeing that some children should not have a mother or father, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, people will take a second look at the claims of the homosexual lobby.
“We are also yet to have a debate in this country free of abusive slurs such as ‘homophobe’ and ‘bigot’ and until that can occur, not one should jump to conclusions about the inevitability of redefining marriage.
“The sort of language from people like Labor Senator Doug Cameron who describe those who don’t support redefining marriage as having the moral equivalence of those who support apartheid is stifling legitimate debate.
“We know that some advocates of redefining marriage think ‘equal love’ should also apply to other forms of love, not just that of same-sex attracted people,” he said.
Mr Shelton said Australians were also largely unaware that practical equality for same-sex couples had been granted through law reforms passed in 2008 supported by the ACL.
“The homosexual activists’ agenda to redefine marriage for the other 97 per cent of the population is the pursuit of a political trophy only and it is insensitive to the needs of children and the cultural and even religious views of the vast majority of Australians.”
The ACL has urged the Australian Labor Party to honour its election promise to support marriage between a man and a woman and not bow to the Greens agenda by watering down its policy at its national conference in December.
Ends
An excellent article.
I think it would be of interest to the various people labelling you homophobes and bigots if you showed them your submission that in your good words “supports” the 2008 law reforms.
I found it on the Australian Government web site here http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/same_sex_entitlements/submissions/sub11.pdf
Thank you for fighting the good right.
I suspect that the gay lobby will stop calling Christians homophobes and bigots when the Christian lobby stops calling homosexuals deviants and their identities a ‘lifestyle choice.’
Until then the slagging will continue.
Thanks for your comment Jim. ACL is not in the business of calling homosexuals ‘deviants’. It is in nobody’s interests to be name-calling, especially when it comes to such important policy issues as this.
Just checking the link I gave above for your submission to the 2008 law reforms.
It actually appears that you were opposed to the reforms.
Probably just a slip of the finger, but perhaps you should fix the media release.
@ Bob – as the submission said: “whilst ACL supports the intent of this bill, we have grave concerns about the terminology used . . .” ACL supported the nature of the changes but was opposed to the way it was written into law.
Not sure I understand the logic behind denying same sex people the right to marry. I cant understand how that impacts our marriages? Many of my christian friends support it. Many of us have gay friends, some with children and I think its important that we stand up for these children too.
Lets turn our attention towards bigger issues such as poverty, homelessness and the climate.
@ Tom – poverty, homelessness and climate are all important issues, but so is the health of the family. A flourishing society requires healthy families.
Statistics like “62% of Australians support same-sex marriage” are as meaningful as previously touted claims that 10% of people are gay, or that 1,000,000 watch the Mardi Gras. These ‘statistics’ were never intended to quantify reality. Their sole purpose was to inflate the appearance of influence and support. Unless a compulsory referendum is held we will never know exactly how many Australians support same-sex ‘marriage.’
Marriage was established by God as part of creation. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) Millennia later, Jesus endorses this in Matthew 19:4. This tells us four things about God’s definition of marriage: the number of parties involved, their gender, the nature of their union, and the length of time it lasts.
In 1975 the Australian government introduced no fault divorce, ending their endorsement of marriage as being for life. Since then they have granted legal equality to de-facto relationships, meaning they consider a covenant-bound relationship to be no better than a couple who are shacked up til one of them gets a better offer. The same-sex ‘marriage’ lobby obviously wants the government to end their endorsement of the genders involved. And the secular humanism that got them here does not hold the number 2 sacred, so there’s no reason to hang on to that part either.
It may well be that marriage gets undermined even further. It may well be that we end up talking of ‘real’ marriage versus ‘legal’ marriage, where real marriage refers to those united as God intended while legal marriage will be a term with no relevance outside of taxation. However it would be a shame if that happened because no one spoke up, and too many people felt steamrolled into accepting it as inevitable.
The same sex marriage lobby will never fade away, it seems. Their view is a bit like saying that if we all pay only a 5% flat tax, and privatise the countries essential services, we would all benefit!
It is clearly a minority view in most countries where it is put to the vote. It is also clear that we have enough problems to deal with without adding those that would surface by having increased unbalanced parenting and resultant downstream unhappiness that is already evidenced through easier divorce laws. Allowing each to do what he sees as right in his own eyes only leads to anarchy has been proven in histort time and time again.
Maybe the press could learn to not give the same sex marriage cause so much space if they genuinely analyse the consequences.
Not sure about the logic of denying same-sex couples the right to marry, or how it impacts our marriages? (Or some of our marriages – I’m single.)
First of all: where do they get the ‘right’ to marry? Not from the author of marriage as he defines it (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:4) Same-sex marriage is denied under the same logic as polygamy, or anything else outside marriage’s definition. This current push by the gay lobby is ideological and comes from their intolerance towards marriage – they can’t handle the fact that it’s different to a same-sex union so they want everyone to pretend it isn’t. They want to ban any word that describes the life long union of a man and a woman (because the reality is that the government currently gives them every right it gives a married couple).
The life long union of a man and a woman is the supreme relationship. It is unique and has no equal. No other relationship can occupy the same place, or even sit next to it. Treating anything else as if it were equal would be inappropriate. A same-sex relationship is inherently different to marriage, and all of its differences are shortcomings. Same-sex relationships do not have the same necessity or capability as complementary-sex relationships; society is not built by them, or even in need of them. Only a terminal case of political correctness, and a talent for ignoring the obvious, could allow a person to claim that a same-sex relationship is equal to marriage.
There is only one way of attempting to make a same-sex relationship equal to marriage, and that is by redefining ‘marriage’ and dragging it downward until it reaches whatever diluted definition you’re aiming for. And sabotaging the most important pillar of society is not a good idea.
Changing something in order for it to include you is self-defeating. That which you end up joining is not that which you wanted to join. It is like a man who wants to attend a women only gym – so he campaigns for them to change their discriminatory policy, and once successful, shows up for his first workout only to find the place half full of men. I have heard at least a few gay lobbyists admit that even if they get the gender changes they want, the rest of the definition of marriage is still untenable to them and will need further adapting. Which begs the question: Why bother?
Good article. It does appear that the real agenda in the push for same sex marriage is not for equality but to force Australians into a human secularist morality. If so, I think the implications of the change should be made clear to the Australian people and a reasoned argument be put forward as to why this should be the new morality for Australia.