The postal plebiscite on marriage is a referendum on freedom of speech, freedom of religion and what your children will be taught about gender and sex at school.
Tonight, the Coalition for Marriage will begin a national television advertising campaign focussed on the consequences of removing the gender diversity requirement from the Marriage Act.
I expect there will be a big reaction from the same-sex marriage movement which does not believe we should be allowed to talk about the consequences of the radical re-shaping of our nation they are pursuing.
Just as brave Canberra mothers Jenny and Kathy, seeking to tell about their families’ experiences with ‘safe schools’, were literally shouted down and physically intimidated by same-sex marriage activists at a public rally two weeks ago, I expect a similar response this week.
Some people, like the Liberal Party’s federal president Nick Greiner, don’t think we should be allowed to discuss the consequences to freedom of speech and for what children are taught about sex and gender at school.
They say talking about radical LGBTIQ sex education, which has become compulsory in countries that have redefined marriage, is conflating the issue.
But being told you can’t talk about consequences of redefining marriage is a bit like trying to have a debate about renewable energy targets and not being allowed to talk about the impact on electricity prices.
The intellectual gymnastics required and the leave pass from normal scrutiny the same-sex marriage political agenda enjoys never ceases to amaze me.
If ever we wanted proof that freedom of speech is at risk by the same-sex marriage political movement, it is in us being continually told what we are not allowed to talk about in the debate.
We are continually told that the so-called “safe schools” gender fluidity and radical homosexual sexual education program has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, despite the two flying under the same rainbow political flag.
Even the organisers of a same-sex marriage rally in Brisbane for September 10 know the two are a package deal (see the picture accompanying this blog).
Maybe they didn’t get the memo from campaign HQ.
Steve Tourloukis is a Canadian father who, after same-sex marriage, found that his children were being compelled to sit through radical LGBTIQ sex education.
His request to withdraw them was denied and a Supreme Court judge backed the school in forcing his kids to have to take part.
A Jewish school in London is facing the prospect of closure because it will not teach homosexuality and gender queer theory.
These are not red herrings as the Liberals’ Mr Greiner would have us believe.
We’ve seen the pre-curser here with parents not told about the introduction of “safe schools”.
With regard to another key consequence, it was good to see a young Muslim woman on the ABC1’s Q&A program raising concerns about the rights of children last night.
Tony Abbott’s lesbian sister, Christine Forster, dismissed the young woman’s concerns.
Forster said she and her partner had six children between them and the kids were all fine because same-sex couples do a great job parenting.
I’m sure that is the case but it is not the point.
Forster’s children were conceived and born into a heterosexual marriage. The kids know their dad.
Under same-sex marriage the state will be obliged to lift the prohibition on commercial surrogacy so two “gay married” men can acquire babies. It will be obliged to ensure sperm donor anonymity in defiance of the rights of the child to know the identity and love of their father.
Again, intellectual gymnastics are required to gloss over inconvenient truths in this debate.