On Wednesday extreme libertarian Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced a bill into the Senate to remove the millennia-old idea that marriage is between two people of complementary gender.
I use the word extreme about Senator Leyohhjelm carefully. He believes
psychosis-inducing marijuana should be sold in supermarkets and that suicide
His extreme libertarian ideology assumes all men are islands and that there is no such thing as society.
Fortunately most members of our federal parliament are for marriage as it is. This means Senator Leyonhjelm’s bill is unlikely to succeed.
So why is it being brought up?
It seems the real tactic in play is to cause the Liberal Party to repudiate its policy supporting marriage by capitulating to the cries for a conscience vote.
While a conscience vote may sound reasonable, the idea that a party cannot uphold something as basic to the rights of a child as marriage is a worry.
Achieving a conscience vote of Liberal MPs has been a strategic objective of the same-sex marriage lobby because it then allows them to pick off MPs one-by-one in the relentless war of attrition they are waging in pursuit of redefining marriage.
So how do we win this debate?
Here are 3 important keys to winning the debate over redefining marriage.1. Recognise that redefining marriage means redefining family
Marriage provides a natural, timeless and sustainable foundation for our society.
Society has an interest in marriage because it provides the best environment for nurturing society’s next generation.
But if we redefine marriage, then we will redefine family. This would have profound conseqeunces for children.
Same-sex marriage means same-sex parenting. The only way two adults of the same sex can parent a child is if that child is removed from at least one of its biological parents.
If we believe a child has the right to a mother and a father, we must reject public policy which places adult rights above that of a child.
For sure tragedy or desertion can cause a child to miss out on knowing and being raised by a parent, but deliberate government policy should not.2. Understand that the same-sex political agenda is one of forcing conformity on the population in a way that denies citizens their most basic liberties.
Senator Leyonhjelm’s so-called Freedom to Marry bill is ironically titled.
The title begs the question why is there no freedom for three or more people to get married? Surely intellectual honesty demands his logic be extrapolated.
But rather than creating more freedom, his bill tramples the freedoms of those who exercise conscience in declining to participate in same-sex weddings.
In the United States, a florist
and even pastors
running a wedding chapel have all faced or are facing serious legal sanction because they exercised their conscience.
Before the High Court struck down the Australian Capital Territory’s same-sex marriage laws a year ago, the Attorney General Simon Corbel made it very clear that failing to supply services to same-sex weddings would be a breach of the territory’s anti-discrimination laws.
This gives us a glimpse of a post-gay marriage world. It is one where anyone who resists conforming to the same-sex political agenda falls foul of the law.
This agenda has no truck with tolerance, freedom of speech, conscience or religion. With the law on its side, it has a big stick to wield against dissenters.
The ‘equality agenda’ also denies freedom of association as we are seeing in Victoria with Labor’s election policy to deny freedom in staff selection to Christian schools, churches and organisations.
Basic freedoms the West has taken for granted are trampled in this brave new world.3. We must speak up
Silence is not an option. The church should be at the forefront of standing up for justice for children and for freedom of conscience.
Australia is so fortunate to be lagging behind the US on same-sex marriage. We can actually see the future we need to avoid.
If we understand the first two points and action the third, I am very confident the majority of Australians will support us. It is just a matter of time.