There are now three bills before the Federal parliament regarding Same Sex marriage

One is Senator Hanson-Young's bill, now before a Senate inquiry.

The second is the Stephen Jones “official” Labor private members bill – that is, one not officially sponsored by the Government – which is likely to get preference in the House of Representatives.

The third is the bill from the Greens Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Wilkie, which is also before the House.

On 8 February 2012 the Senate referred the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 for inquiry and report.

This private senator's bill, introduced by Senator Hanson-Young, seeks to remove all discriminatory references from the Marriage Act 1961 to allow all people, regardless of sex, sexuality and gender identity, the opportunity to marry.

Submissions should be received by 2 April 2012. The reporting date is 25 May 2012.

You can obtain information, and receive assistance on making a submission, at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality_2012/index.htm.

May God strengthen us to continue to defend true marriage which is the voluntary union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.

Peter

Legalised same-sex marriage would change everything. Everything! We need to wake up and learn from history here. Consider what happened in the American state of Massachusetts. Since they legalised SSM in 2004, all hell has broken out. It would happen here as well. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
 

Bill Muehlenberg

(On massresistance.org home page - look under 'special reports' on the right "What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts").

California is the first state in the US to force gay history into the public school curriculum. The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act (SB48) took effect on 1 Jan. The law mandates that all pupils, including those in kindergarten, “admire the role and contributions of ... lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” in all “instruction in social sciences.” Textbooks and instructional materials must positively promote LGBT Americans’ contributions, and prohibits materials and instruction that reflect adversely. California is the largest textbook market in the country so other states may also be forced to use the textbooks as they are revised (Christian Post 4/1/12). The homosexual agenda rolls on, providing training for coming generations to replicate the painful destruction of natural families.

Same-sex marriage campaigners say any Bill to change the Marriage Act is doomed to fail if introduced too early. They want Labor MP Stephen Jones to wait until the Coalition grants its MPs a conscience vote on the issue before introducing a private members Bill (Herald Sun 3/1/12 p16). We must support Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and the Coalition in opposing a conscience vote on this issue. Conscience votes imply that right and wrong are obscured or hazy. Clear evidence provides ample warning about same-sex relationships (Muehlenberg B. 2011 Strained Relations - The Challenge of Homosexuality pp 9-34 Freedom Publishing)

Federal Labor has voted 208 to 184 at their 2011 national conference to change party platform and support giving same-sex couples marriage. They will allow a conscience vote for MPs when a bill comes to change the Marriage Act (Herald Sun 4/12/11 p7). Legalizing same-sex marriage could quickly lead to subverting children throughout the whole nation – see California laws below for example.

Federal opposition leader Tony Abbott will oppose a conscience vote on gay marriage and will bind Coalition MPs to an election pledge not to change the present law, sticking by the policy they took into the 2010 election that "marriage is between a man and a woman". Liberal communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull wants a conscience vote (News.com.au 11/12)

The battle in California after same-sex marriage laws were passed, then repealed.

In the US, Californian pro-family groups have launched another effort to overturn the law (SB 48) that requires gay history to be taught in public schools. The first attempt to reverse the law failed earlier this year when the coalition gathered 497,000 signatures, just shy of the 505,000 that are required (Christian Post 8/12/11).

Passed in July 2011, Californian law SB 48 requires that textbooks used in public schools include significant contributions from gays, lesbians and transgendered people in history. It also requires the development of new teaching material covering sexual orientation, and prohibits the use of materials negatively reflecting gay and lesbian lifestyles (Christian Post 8/12/11).

Pro-family groups say the Californian law SB 48 is essentially political activism in schools. It “violates the innocence of 7 million California children, promotes gender confusion, sexualizes social science material, normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism and omits dangers of the homosexual lifestyle – especially for men.” (Christian Post 8/12/11). California permitted same-sex marriage between June and November 2008, before the law was overturned.

Do we want to risk the safety of our children and the coming generations? Let’s encourage and support those leaders who defend the natural family.

In August 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution declaring that mental health professionals should not tell same-sex attracted clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments - even if they want to change.

A six person APA Committee apparently examined 83 studies on 'sexual orientation change' and concluded that "there is no solid evidence that change is likely".

Two questions must be asked about this statement - which may lead us to discover two major flaws with their conclusion.

Firstly, from what 'premise' did the APA committee start?

Secondly, what is their definition of the word 'change'?

Yes, this is a 'prestigious' organization and one from which we should expect the highest standard of accountability and scientific research, BUT, sadly, the APA is actually no better than those who purport to write theological studies approving of homosexuality - because the APA also starts from a false premise and builds the argument on that premise.

I have been utterly amazed to discover that a major newspaper recently carried an opinion piece by a Muslim spokesman advocating polygamy in Australia. If a Christian were to write an article suggesting something equally bizarre, it would never see the light of day. Or if it would, the only reason would be for it to be roundly condemned by one and all. But the Melbourne Age evidently thought it was quite alright to actually run with this nonsense, presumably because a Muslim was pushing it.

To be sure, there are all sorts of nutter groups out there promoting polygamy and polyamory at the moment. Simply type the latter term into a search engine, and see the multitude of sites promoting it. There are plenty of groups out there - some seeking to pass themselves off as 'respectable' - calling for the full legalisation and normalisation of polyamory.

Of interest, the very same arguments being used for polyamory (group love and marriage) are the ones being used for same-sex marriage: 'Hey, what's wrong with it if it is consensual, confined to adults, and doesn't hurt anyone?'

14 August 2009

Along with the homosexual groups lobbying for same-sex 'marriage', the Greens have put a bill to allow same-sex 'marriage' into the Senate.

Submissions are now due by August 28.  

In your submission (or letter) to the Senate Committee, please say that you support marriage continuing to be for heterosexual couples ONLY and that you oppose same-sex 'marriage'.

That is, we want the current Marriage Act, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman, to remain the same.

ALSO mention your opposition to any other form of legal recognition for same-sex and multiple partner relationships. 

You can make your submission ONLINE - click here.
Alternatively send it by email to legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

4 August 2009

Despite the spin of Labor and some commentators to try and put a positive note on the conference outcome regarding marriage, things are not as good as one might think.

Mr Rudd stated at the start of the conference he did not want any changes to Labor's position on relationship recognition, but clearly recognised cosmetic changes could be required to stave off the major push being mounted by homosexual activists and their supporters within the Party and outside.

Although the resultant changes might look 'cosmetic', they are far from it in reality

The implication once again is that, while a leader may hold a certain position, there are no guarantees they will get what they want.

Senior Cabinet Minister, Anthony Albanese, is reported as saying 'it was a compromise that would satisfy no one, but the status quo [Rudd's favoured position] of relationship recognition had failed.'

He also said the compromise brought the issue forward and the debate would continue until gay and lesbian Australians had full equality.

"Labor values are that all people are born equal regardless of their sexuality" he said.

In fact, the new ALP policy on same-sex 'relationships' now leaves a lot to be desired:

Three important things were REMOVED from the platform last Saturday

•   The statement that Labor believes 'Marriage is between a man & a woman' has GONE.

•  The words 'Relationship Registers' have been removed - the policy now talks of a 'national framework' and a review of 'relationship recognition arrangements' to make them consistent across Australia'.

•   The words "not mimic marriage" were removed in relation to those 'acceptable other forms of legal recognition'.

In addition, the Conference passed a motion that supports IVF for lesbians - the motion said Labor "formally opposes state laws that discriminate against lesbian, single and unmarried women in access to reproductive technologies such as IVF."