MD Jim Wallace
Media Release
For release: July 18, 2011
The Australian Christian Lobby’s Managing Director Jim Wallace today joined what would have been fellow debating team members Tasmanian Liberal MP Michael Ferguson and the Australian Family Association’s Terri Kelleher in withdrawing from a debate on gay marriage at the University of Tasmania, in protest at the increasing use of demonisation tactics by gay activists in pursuing their agenda.
In a joint statement the three said their withdrawal was no reflection on UTAS, but that “a debate is about the ability to put competing views in a civil environment where the reasonable opinions of all participants are respected, and one which is free of personal attack and vitriol. But given the record of some gay activists and their supporters in the public debate on this issue, we have no confidence that that will be the case.”
They made reference to the shocking and unfounded attempt to slur Michael Ferguson by ALP State MP Brenton Best, when he accused him of being “partly responsible” for the bashing of a gay man simply because he had been a member of a family values group some eight years before.
“But this is increasingly typical of the tactics being used by the gay rights lobby and their media,” the statement said, read by Mr Wallace. “Only last Thursday the Sydney Star Observer described the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Family Association, who Terri and I represent, as ’gay hate’ groups”.
“The ACL is committed to represent Christ in what we do – not to hate, but to love, even those who oppose us. Because Christ’s purpose and witness by my organisation is all important to us,” Mr Wallace said.
Speaking personally within the statement, Mr Wallace said gay activists seem oblivious to the fact that their vitriol hurts people well beyond their targets.
“I personally have both same sex attracted friends and associations that I value, and I am deeply offended by these attacks which inevitably damage those relationships,” he said, “such attacks also prey on concerns by same sex attracted people that they might be hated, and this is not the case in society today.”
The statement went on to say how the attempted revision of marriage deserved full debate.
“Marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as the embodiment of motherhood and fatherhood with all their important implications for children, is deeply valued as that by many people for both cultural and faith reasons. This is the definition of marriage, and for many these concepts are precious, even sacred, and people with those views should be free in this society to raise them in the public square without intimidation.”
The statement concluded by saying that, “it is time that political and community leaders at every level demand that all important social issues including this one, be allowed to be debated on their merits.”
Click here to hear an audio recording of Mr Wallace’s address to press in Tasmania.
Click here to read the transcript of the press conference.
Isn’t it amazing? People screaming for so-called equality and their ‘rights’ resort to bully tactics and threats – the very thing they say they have endured themselves over the years. They do their cause no good. They have lost all self respect and credibility. People are allowed to have differing views – Christians are attacked for expressing theirs yet others feel they have the right to ‘go for it’ regardless of anything else. Just watch now as they come and have a go at me for writing this.
What Helen Thomas said. It seems that if an opinion comes from a Christian, then it is ok to slam the person down, simply because they are Christian. How about respecting each other and each others opinions.
I totally support this action but find it dissapointing that some press and gay movement quarters take advantage to use this topic in an anit-religion push. Christian Australians should have their rights respected in this matterf and being able to air them is one of those rights.
As usual Homosexual Activitists demand tolerance towards their aims however tolerance is not reurned to others by The Gays especially when their views are different, tolerance is not returned. Well done Jim.
If this small group want to make progress with their cause, and claim to have the majority behind them, let them put it to the test. The greens are pushing their agenda in the background (or foreground) and before it becomes a case of, Legislation by Fatigue, put it before the Australian people. Let there be a referendum. Perhaps that will settle things for “ten minutes.”
It is sad to hear of the vitriol and accusations made, but it simply confirms the source of these attacks. No matter what the public voice has to say, nothing will change the truth, purpose and intent of God’s word.
You are to be encouraged and thanked for your public stand in your reply, as our representatives,in the issue of the sanctity of marriage.
Jim Michael and Terri, thank you for all you are doing. Please feel free to amend or delete my comments. They are my thoughts, and for what they are worth. Feel free to use them if they are relevant.
Of course, many Christians still seem to believe that homosexuality is a choice, just like smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or practising faith. If you want respect, then acknowledge that sexuality is part of one’s being rather than a “lifestyle choice” that so many religious folk offensively put. I didn’t choose to be asian, I didn’t choose to be gay.
@ Henry – John D’Emilio, US gay activist and professor of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago:
““[B]orn gay” is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.” http://www.isreview.org/issues/65/feat-demilio.shtml
I was disappointed when I heard about the withdrawal of the debate team. I understand that the decision was not taken lightly, and that you would have more information on the climate than I have, however can you reconsider.
As Christians in Australia, we will be persecuted for what we believe to be true.
Hi Jim and team, I was a bit disappointed to say the least hearing about your withdrawal. When dealing with unscrupulous, unprincipled people you can expect this kind of treatment. But we all heard the saying “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”. The apostle Paul was beaten, stoned, jailed and prosecuted, but nothing would stop him from preaching and teaching the gospel. You may have to be prepared for far worse then just being demonised when dealing with this crowd (and politicians).
I believe that the decision to withdraw form the debate is correct and sensible. It would appear that your you and your team Jim, would have been in physical danger.
An article in the Same Same Website by Matt Akersten says:-
“The decision comes “in protest at the increasing use of demonisation tactics by gay activists in pursuing their agenda,” says a weakening Wallace.
It’s probably just as well. Research suggests younger Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage law reform, and Tassie students were likely to boo, jeer and throw shoes at them anyway.”
It seems that in our society, some “rights’ are more right than others.
The “right” to equality in all things seems to trump the right to practice
one’s religious faith, free from abuse and derision.
The recognition of marriage by the Christian as a sacred institution and sacrament seems to be irrelevant to the radical homosexual rights activist and they seem beyond attempting to understand the spiritual meaning of the Christian Marriage. The crux of marriage from a Christian worldview is, that it’s symbolic of Christ’s union with His church. It is a blessed union where two become one both physically and spiritually. The church is the “bride of Christ”. A bride being defined as “a woman on her wedding day or just before and after the event”.
Note, a “bride” is a woman, and Christ is a man. The Church is not referred as the “husband” of Christ.
Marriage, to Christianity, is a “scared site”. All we ask is not to desecrate it (treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect).
We Christians did not write the Bible, we only follow it.Its our sacred text, so don’t expect us to compromise its teachings just because it doesn’t fit your world view. Make yours a union in whichever “world view” ceremony you like but,out of respect for the key religious icon of a major world faith, leave marriage as a heterosexual union.
Personally I am disappointed in your decision. I don’t think it’s indicated anywhere in scripture that the fight for righteousness and justice will be fair or free from conflict – in fact all the disciples bar one lost their lives. The Word says we will overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony AND WE LOVED NOT OUR LIVES UNTO DEATH, Rev 12:11. Isn’t this sort of opposition “our persecution” we can expect just as Christians in other parts of the world are being physically persecuted. Your a military man Jim – did you stop fighting just because the enemy was being “unfair” or played dirty. Sorry but I don’t agree with this stand. Who knows that somebody in that crowd might not have been spoken to (just like Paul was when they stoned Stephen) by the courage and humility that would have been required by you to go ahead with this event even if you were shouted down. They are going to be witnessed to by our actions and the faith in our convictions not our words I believe. Blessings anyway
Is it not time to call to account under law those who habitually employ slander snd libel in pursuit of their objectives? The truth cannot forever be held ransom to poilitcal correctness.
Thank you ACL for the leadership you provide, along with those notable invidual demoninational leaders who clearly recognise the battle has now shifted to the market place, sadly and largely beyond the hegemony of the ‘etsablished’ Church.
When seeking to overturn an ancient convention, the proper course in my view is a referendum of the people. Clearly, such a referendum on gay marriage would result in a landslide vote against, unless large numbers of non-gays were to be convinced that justice would be best served by the change. There has been ample discussion of this subject, debate, scrutiny, appleals to reason by both sides, demonstrations et al. WHY ON EARTH is this a decision to be made by politicians? It should be put direct to the people. And the sooner the better.
It is not only disturbing, but frightening that such bullying tactics are left unchecked in our so called ‘free society’. When it comes to debating serious cultural change, secular academics, INSIST on evidence based data and not emotive, personal or anecdotal posturing. Yet when it comes to same sex marriage, no ‘evidence based data’ is permitted, only emotive and subjective narrative about peoples experiences/feelings good or bad. The inconsistency (to be kind) is frankly not only disappointing, but more – irrantional
It is time that sound anthropological, biological and theological data be objectively looked at by these ‘social architects’. In so doing they will discover the best model for societal and familial structures is a loving functioning heterosexual marriage in which chldren are given the full benefit of a loving mother and father.
Marriage is not an exclusive Christian practice, we do not own marriage. Marriage is a world wide practice and has been since the start of time, in slightly different forms in the different nations, cultures and religions. It has commonly been one male to one female (or more) for the purpose of raising and protecting future generations. A life long commitment.
The current Australian Marriage Act has served us well as a family binding core of our society but it is now out of step with Australians at large. People simply do not care. Well done Jim, and supporters of ACL, in our fight to maintain what we call Christian values. We need to establish an exclusive Christian meaning, name and process to two people joining together in the eyes of God. A union that is not offended by the fact that non-Christians may also want to join together for whatever purposes they decide on.
If you had any guts you would have not backed down.
So, what’s the worst that could happen? Be heckled maybe injured.
Where would we be if Christ had chickened out?
STAND UP TO THEM. I ONLY WISH MY HEALTH PERMITTED ME TO ATTEND.
Marriage, as defined in the Marriage Act, should never be tampered with – drastic societal effects would follow were a change to be legislated for. While I know analogies do not always work, I risk making one(an aeronautical one as I do a lot of flying). Jet engines were designed to run on aviation fuel. Should I decide in my wisdom and expertise to use orange juice, no amount of squeezing is going to get a plane off the ground even were I to demonstrate how unequal it is for airlines to have a monopoly on ‘Avgas’. It was just simply not meant to be that way.
Come on, speak TRUTH (God’s Word), stand up, be counted, you ARE (as Joyful said) a military man, Jim, and we are in a war, a spiritual war. When you speak God’s word, GOD is with you as He was with David. You are backed by prayer, so RUN TOWARDS the enemy.
Jim, and all those who are fighting to defend Christian Marriage I congratulate you on your efforts. You obviously discerned that to withdraw from the debate was the best course of action. I think that prayer is one of the most important ways of helping to solve this situation, and help people to understand the real meaning of Marriage. Congratulations & thank you for your work, & I pray for success for your efforts.
I personally think the decision was very wise. The issue here is not whether or not Jim et al were willing to “stand up to them” but whether the name of Christ would have been honoured and truth proclaimed. It seems quite clear that the only outcome of such a meeting (without genuine willingness and respect given to all people to speak their opinion) would have been an angry, poisonous attack on the truth and on those seeking to represent it. No real opportunity to speak this truth would have took place, and it would have merely become an opportunity to attack and drown out the Christian truth in a public forum; resulting in Christ’s name being dishonoured not lifted high. May the Spirit of Truth humble all our hearts to encourage us in unity to lift up Christ.
I would just like to say how much I appreciate the efforts made by Jim, Michael and Terri. I hear those saying stand up and speak and I understand their frustration but there is also the injunction to be “wise as serpents and subtle as doves”. A debate can only take place where both parties are willing to hear the others viewpoints and for too long Christians have been seen to be unwilling to listen. Our perceived, or real, self righteousness has alienated many intelligent observers. The editorial finger is seldom pointed at the activists opposed to Christian lobby ideals because it risks being seen to agree with the “Christian” principles. It’s not equitable, but then few things are. I think we are required to raise issues where beliefs we have are attacked or undermined, as can all people in a free country. I also believe that those who sink to personal slurs and attacks show themselves up as being insecure, re-actionary, and as McCarthy like as they so often accuse others of being. If we speak the truth, as we believe it to be from the Bible,in love; and it is rejected out of hand then I think it time to do some cleaning of dust from sandals.