Media Release
For release: July 14, 2011
Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Jim Wallace has called for an end to the serial demonisation of anyone who publicly resists the gay activists’ agenda to redefine marriage.
This follows today’s attack on Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd’s sister, Loree, for her comments expressing concern at the global propaganda machine of the homosexual lobby and equating this to a “global gay Gestapo”.
It also follows a scurrilous and unfounded charge made under the cover of Parliamentary privilege by Tasmanian State Labor MP Brenton Best linking fellow Liberal MP Michael Ferguson’s pro-marriage views with the tragic bashing of a local gay man.
“We would believe most people would view Ms Rudd’s use of the term ‘Gestapo’ as referring to attempts to use fear and intimidation to silence dissent,” Mr Wallace said.
“We share Ms Rudd’s concern about the use of these tactics, further demonstrated by the gay lobby’s attack on her today, to stifle debate about the future of marriage.
“In a democratic society there must be freedom to support and advocate for marriage remaining between a man and a woman without being accused of inciting hatred, being ‘homophobic’, bigoted and now anti-Semitic.
“Sadly this is happening all too often with the unfounded attack on Mr Ferguson and the NSW Labor Senator Doug Cameron’s recent comments accusing people who do not support same-sex marriage of being the equivalent of racist supporters of Apartheid.
Mr Wallace called on the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to demand more civility in this debate.
“We must stop this demonisation of anyone supporting family and children as being homophobic’, anti-gay or gay haters. It is over the top and demands a response by our political leaders.”
I’ve seen your followers us the term gaystapo. You insist on spreading hate and misinformation about gays and lesbians – which does lead some people to bash others. Sin accuses itself in this case.
@ Patrick – ACL would highly recommend you read the editorial in today’s Mercury newspaper on the Michael Ferguson issue. Although a supporter of same-sex marriage, the paper says: “It was nonsense to suggest that a person’s opposition to same-sex marriage was tantamount to inciting hatred and violence”. ACL deplores intimidation and violence directed at all individuals. This includes the use of rhetorical devices such as ‘hate’ and ‘gaystapo’ to stifle legitimate public debate about the nature of marriage.
Australia is still a free democratic country where all people have the right to express their opinion. The gay marraige lobby have that right and have have been putting their view forward for quite some time. Those of us who diagree with their view also have to the right to express our opinions. However, when anyone does publicly disagree with them, they are immediately branded homophobic (an incorrect term) and denied our right to a say.
Let me pose this question. Am I as a married hetrosexual Christian women allowed to state that I am a married hetrosexual Christian women and speak honestly about my lifestyle or would that be offensive to you or anyone who is not married, hetrosexual or Christian?? Or am I being unfair to think that I also have a right to have you not offend me and my rights and beliefs which are put under attack on a daily basis by the media. Because that is what you do on a daily basis when you state that we are gay haters, haters of atheists, haters of freedom of speech which all are just lies, yet the tweets and replies that Jim Wallace from ACL receives daily definately incite hatred toward him because he does not share your belief system. So where is our freedom of speech, or are you the only ones that are allowed a voice.
@Patrick – Well said mate!
Thank goodness for ACL and the leadership they continually show in regard to the same-sex marriage debate and other issues. You speak for the majority of Australians and I applaud you for airing this public debate in such a balanced and honest way. Please please keep up the opposition.
As christians we must follow the example Christ gave us to love one another and live in truth. What fellow citizens must understand that for us standing agaisnt what we see contray to living in truth is actually walking in love. If we thought being married in a gay marriage would bring someone life time joy and forfillment we would support the concept. We do not believe that it will and we also believe in will distance anyone who lives in this manner to be distanced from God the Father. Many people believe it is wrong for samesex marriage to exist however are not many are going to speak up. Lets all try and hear each others point of view without malace being thrown around.
Yeah, you don’t “hate” gays. You just see them as inferior people with second-class relationships who need to be discriminated against by law.
By SECULAR law.
There is no way that removing the gender specifications from the Marriage Act that Howard put there in 2004 will affect you Christians in the slightest. You’re not going to have to marry gay people in your churches any more than you presently have to marry Hindu people or Muslims. You’re not going to have to get gay married yourself.
Basically, it’s got nothing to do with you. There are tens of thousands of non-Christian marriages that take place around the country every year: the Marriage Act is for all Australians, not just Christians.
And frankly, there’s no argument you can run against marriage of gay people being equally recognised by the law that you couldn’t also have run against any previous civil rights issue. All you have is “tradition”, which is the same argument run against women having the vote and ending racial segregation.
Just leave gay Australians alone. Let them have the same protections under the law the rest of us enjoy. And concentrate on the stuff that Jesus actually talked about.
@ Jeremy – thank you very much for your comments.
Homosexual couples already enjoy the same protections under the law as the rest of society, except they cannot call their relationship ‘marriage’. A same-sex relationship is one of many relationships that is not called marriage, so this is hardly a case of unjustified discrimination.
The redefinition of marriage has absolutely everything to do with other people, including Christians, since marriage is a public institution and the whole point of revising marriage is to publicly recognise same-sex couples as married. There is very strong evidence that changing the definition of marriage has dramatic consequences for the free exercise of fundamental human rights to freedom of belief and conscience, freedom of association, and the right of parents to raise their children in a way that accords with their values.
It appears that the gays, as a result of the pro-traditional marriage supporters, are turning thoroughly paranoid, in their constant vitriol and attacking of “anti-gays”. I am certainly not anti-gay. My husband and I have a number of gay friends, yet I could not ever support gay marriage. I think there should be some form of legal recognition of gay bonding, but I believe it should not, must not possibly be termed “gay marriage”.
Jim Wallace is right Loree Rudd or whoever has the right to speak their mind on political issues in this case the importance heterosexual marriage. The Homosexual Lobby preach tolerance on issues that suit their radical agenda however use tried tactics of intidation on those who speak out against them bordering on Censorship.
@Patrick-what hate and misinformation?
I am very happy to see that this issue is being brought to light and exposed for what it is. It is getting out of hand how the second someone opposes gay marriage they are instantly labelled a hateful and violence-inciting person.
The whole mantra of the ‘new’ morality is meant to be ‘tolerance’. But it seems that they are totally INtolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
Marriage – (the union between one man and one woman for life) is a time-proven solid foundation on which to build a family. The fact that so many marriages break down these days does not change that fact. Instead of attempting to demonise marriage between a man and a woman, we would do well to protect this time proven union as the safest, most stable, well-balanced environment for the successful raising of children.
The longest-lasting marriages are generally the result of the willingness of parents to put their family relationships first. When acquisitions and “lifestyle” take over, something generally has to give, and it is usually relationships within the family. We need to get our priorities right – families first and acquisitions/wealth a very poor second!
Finally, the social experimentation of deliberately placing children in a same-sex adult environment should be condemned.
True. All these proponents of “tolerance” are remarkably intolerant of anyone who holds a different view to theirs, be that same sex marriage, global warming, surrogacy… Tolerance has never meant full acceptance of something, only the willingness to agree to disagree, something the gay lobby doesn’t seem able to do.
“A same-sex relationship is one of many relationships that is not called marriage, so this is hardly a case of unjustified discrimination.”
What are the other kinds you’re referring to? It is certainly the only kind of relationship between two people that can’t be called marriage, and there’s no serious push among the Australian community for the legalisation of any other kind.
@ Fred – the relationship between a father and his son, or between two sisters is not called marriage. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is an objective reality that is grounded in the complementary nature of the sexes, and in their ability to produce children.
I work with many gay co-workers and certainly don’t have a problem. I enjoy working with them.. The facts are – they are both the same gender, they can’t product children, so the word ‘marriage’ does not refer to them. A relationship between a male, and a female – their ability to produce children = marriage! Let’s stick to the facts.
THey can have their union, just call it something else, so we know what’s what.
Great work Jim Wallace!
Last time I checked, as Christians we were still entitled to have our voices heard and published without being slandered as “haters” of anybody! I call on the media to stop vilifying Christians for having a view. Loree Rudd is entitled to her view without being pressured to “apologise” to anyone. Same for Kate on MasterChef over the ridiculous ‘Dalai Lama nonsense’. More Christians need to find their voices. I applaud you Loree. And I say gay couples already have every right they could possibly want, except the blessing of God. And legislating for gay marriage won’t give them that!
Jeremy, it would be more helpful to your comments if you actually knew what Jesus talked about; like most non Christians who make biblical comments,they dont actually know what it does say in the Bible. About the legal rights of any couples living together in a sexual relationship, married or not, they all have the same legal “rights”. So, in either case, what exactly are you talking about?
I have had many homosexual friends over the years and thoroughly loved them as the individuals that they are. I happily sit next to ‘gays’ in Church and welcome them into my home, as they do me – I do not have an issue with how people live their lives – that is their business but of late, people do not seem to be able to identify themselves without adding what sexual orientation they follow when they introduce themselves. I personally object to homosexual marriage simply because marriage is between a man and a woman and has been a tradition for many centuries in all countries of our world – even being homosexual in some countries today will only bring death. I do support equal rights for everybody but why doesn’t the intelligent gay community come up with something they can relate to, to call their permanent relationships and leave marriage to men and women. This hatred and anger towards people who do not agree with them (and I have been shouted at and called names because of my opinion) only highlights the fact that while they like to believe they have the right to free speech, they do not allow it in those who disagree with them. This is not democratic but shows selfishness and self importance rather than societal balance, debate and equality.