Same-sex marriage supporters are under the impression that if marriage is legally redefined, the issue will be resolved and done entirely. Nice thought, but sadly, not the case.
Mark Latham cuts right to the chase with this, stating a ‘same-sex marriage ‘Yes’ vote will open a can of worms’. This is not in any way a slight on the LGBTI community. What Latham is demonstrating is that the legislative workings behind the definition of marriage will not stop if marriage is redefined – they will be unleashed:
If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.
Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.
One would logically expect the new legislation to read:
“Marriage is a union between:
a) A man and a woman; or
b) Two gay men; or
c) Two lesbian women.”
But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.
The real kicker here is the major contradiction between what the ‘Yes’ campaign is advocating, and what the drafted legislation from Bill Shorten and the like actually proposes:
He [Bill Shorten] sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality . . . That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.
This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.
But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?
This is no small matter.
Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F.
I mean, what does the legalisation of polyamorous, skoliosexual and twospirit marriage involve?
Latham isn’t saying this to mock the trans community. Instead, it has real consequences in areas including – importantly – the education of our children. He explains:
I’m also worried about the way in which marriage between any “two people” legitimises the notion of gender fluidity.
Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system.
They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.
With a majority of parents saying they don’t want radical queer theory in the school curriculum via Safe Schools, why would we want it in the Marriage Act?
Marriage equality has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The other side are trying to convince Australians that there are no consequences to changing the definition of marriage, and will do anything they can to stop Australians hearing about the impact a change will have on them and their families.
Even Mark Latham, a supporter of same-sex marriage, realises it is too dangerous to write a blank cheque for freedom.
Without clarification on exactly what we will be voting, it is best to vote ‘No’, not just for the sake of marriage, but for the sake of the rights of ALL Australians:
Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories.
My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it.
I won’t be.
As we have reiterated before, there is far more at stake in this vote than just marriage. The consequences of redefining an integral part of our society and its function will be borne by everyone – regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage. It is not a ‘No’ vote to deny anybody rights – it is a vote to say ‘No’ to allowing legislation to run wild, and run right over the freedom of all Australians.