We were told it would not come to this but it's looking more likely.
In Massachusetts, the first State in the US to redefine marriage, three women have had a lawyer draw up an arrangement that in their eyes says they are 'married'.
Polygamy remains illegal in Massachusetts but if we follow the 'equal love' logic it is hard to see why.
Using an anonymous sperm donor and IVF, Kitten became pregnant and she, Brynn and Doll claim the unborn child as their own.
Kids miss out on a dad because of tragedy or desertion but media and elite cultural acceptance means what the 'throuple' (their word) is doing is no big deal.
If love is all you need gender and nature's numerical norm does not matter to a child.
Even former High Court judge Michael Kirby, a vocal supporter of redefining marriage, is honest about this.
Asked at the 2012 Senate inquiry into the failed bill to redefine marriage whether polygamy would be next, Mr Kirby said that question was not before the parliament but added that these things are "step by step".
The political campaign to change marriage has hit a democratic road block with the parliament unwilling to change.
How Kitten, Brynn and Doll choose to live their lives is up to them. But public policy affects us all - especially voiceless children.
There is pressure on our parliamentarians to cave in.
But by remaining in the discussion, we can dodge redefining marriage and its logical consequences.
A motion to reintroduce last year’s same-sex marriage bill in Tasmania’s upper house was this week defeated eight votes to six. During a long day of speeches, those supporting the motion tried in vain to convince those who had opposed the bill last year that new information presented was reason enough to bring back the bill for debate.
Much of the argument centred on legal opinions. Preeminent constitutional lawyer Bret Walker SC had given his legal opinion that Tasmania’s same-sex marriage legislation was constitutional and could withstand an inevitable High Court challenge. This advice was backed by a Law Reform Institute Paper. ACL had provided a counter opinion from highly credentialed lawyers/professors which helped many MLC’s to conclude that opinion was just as divided now as it was in 2012, some even using the term “lawyer shopping” to describe events since last year.
Sadly, as was the case in the previous debate, there were moments when the passion on the part of those supporting the motion crossed a line into what could be best described as manipulation for those unwilling to show “leadership” and support the motion. Such subtle pressure is also being applied to the general public via the media. This was clearly illustrated outside parliament immediately after the debate when a reporter from a well known national media outlet was uninterested in getting any opinion from anyone other than the gay lobby.
As was the case last year, it is likely that MLC’s who rejected the motion will be the targets of abuse and therefore will need our prayers and encouragement. Please send them a short letter of thanks (Note: although Legislative Council President Jim Wilkinson did not vote, he made it clear that he would not support such a motion should he have the casting vote).
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
We are grateful to God that attempts to introduce euthanasia and same-sex “marriage” legislation this month have been thwarted. Our attention is now focused on the issue of abortion with debate on a bill to decriminalise abortion in Tasmania likely mid November. Please keep Tasmania in your prayers.
Mark Brown, Tasmanian Director
PO Box 89
Riverside TAS 7250
0408 850 629