It must be sad when all your positive days are behind you, and all you can do with your remaining time is rail stupidly against equality and justice. Or when more and more of society moves on from the bigotry and prejudice you championed, and you’re left howling hysterically at the moon.
Pity Margaret Court and Bill Muehlenberg. Their time has passed, and history will judge them unkindly.
PS I tried publishing this comment at Muehlenberg’s silly rant, “When Darkness Descends Upon a Nation”, railing against the ALP finally deciding to stop advocating discrimination against people for no good reason. The comment is still unpublished, a week later:
I take it you lot have missed the part where your churches won’t have to solemnise any marriages you don’t want to – just like now.
So it’s got nothing to do with you, frankly. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married.
In modern Australia we daily see all manner of non-Christian marriages. Atheists. Muslims. Jews. Buddhists. Hindus. To you, marriage might be about your relationship with the God you believe exists. To others, it isn’t.
Point is, Christianity is not mandatory. Christian marriage is not the only sort of marriage our law recognises.
And there is no rational reason for the law to continue discirminating against gay people.
Today saw a massive shift in the power of people like Muehlenberg and Wallace and De Bruyn to bully the Australian public into accepting their minority beliefs as law. Hence the hysteria. You are on the losing side on this, because you are on the WRONG side. Just as you were on equality for women.
Fairness, equality and justice will prevail. All you can do is delay it slightly.
(Naturally, I expect my comment to be edited or not published, because you are not committed to honesty and clearly feel your fragile community needs to be shielded from debate.)
Of course I was right – but how embarrassing for Bill and his faith in his community.
UPDATE: Oh, goodness. Check Bill’s unhinging today:
Indeed, the push for polyamory (group love) is getting almost as strong as the push for SSM.
Yeah, that’s right. Haven’t you seen the tens of thousands of people at pro-polyamory marches? Didn’t you read the polyamory private member’s bill that put a clear proposal for evaluation? Oh, wait, no, that didn’t happen.
It’s hilarious watching the Bill Muehlenbergs of this world get increasingly unhinged as their defeat on the issue of marriage equality comes ever closer. And of course, the more fringe and silly their argments, the less likely they are to be able to find anyone to publish them.
They’re fading. And they really don’t like it.
Moved On 
” They’re fading. And they really don’t like it. ”
Are they? When you see the amount of loons that turn out to the fundie churches on weekends, speak in tongues, and dance the macerena to the dulcet tones of the beat of a well bashed tambourine, I wonder. These people are dead set bonkers, away with the mixer, but above all else, dangerous.
I remember as a kid back in the fifties and sixties not only the contempt these religious wackos had for homosexuals but the outright cover up of the bashings and extreme discrimination. They would if they could have homosexuals stoned to death. Sad really.
Using inflammatory and provocative language and drowning out those who disagree with your point of view is what the mad hatter right do.
There’s nothing wrong having religious faith if mythology is your thing. There is , however, a problem when your faith is so shaky you have to drown out – or worse, censor – someone who views things differently.
BTW. Does Margaret Court have a B.Th or is the ‘reverend’ a Danny Nalliah variety ‘reverend’?
Fundamental religious people don’t represent the majority of normal people who oppose gay marriage any more than the radical millitants represent the average Aussie who supports (or doesn’t care) about changing the status of marriage.
The fundamentalists of marginal religions in Australia and their nouveau leftist enablers are an emerging problem for Australia.
Consider that there are whole swathes of Australia that can’t be developed, farmed, mined or even visited because some supposed creation serpent slithered across it thousands of years ago.
Yet time after time we have seen the folk here on this blog go for the easy shot of attacking some fundie christians and their ideas as opposed to others who have just as weird or even weirder theology.
I wonder if these people will go after Tony Abbott for his publicized sin of sex before marriage? Oops, I forgot. Despite what the Bible actually says, Christians have a definite hierarchy of sin which seems to be based on whether or not they like the sinner. The utter hypocrisy was my reason for leaving, and never looked back.
Uh, TF, the land rights issue for indigenous Australians was only partly religious. The main point is that we took the bloody land from their ancestors.
Now you might say, so what – none of those people are alive today, and rights aren’t inherited. Except that in our country they are, and the rest of us have inherited the benefits our ancestors stole two hundred years ago. Sadly we do not have a system where everyone starts on an equal base. Until we do, things like arbitrary land rights will be necessary to attempt to paper over the injustice.
Hey no problems with Aboriginal people owning land and trying to bring them up to speed with their fellow Aussies in this land of undoubted wealth and opportunity.
We have a pretty good model you know. Mum, Dad, couple of kids. Dog. House in the suburbs. Job. Two cars.
I want Aboriginal kids with laptops and enrolled inthe best Universities of the world, not spears and the back blocks of Wadeye.
I just wish you and your kind would call them on the bulldust creation stories the same way you do with the Christians.
“I just wish you and your kind would call them on the bulldust creation stories the same way you do with the Christians.”
The atheist position is implicit: religion X and its creation stories are bulldust. Fill in for all values of X. It isn’t necessary to explicitly list all of the X’s when the principle applies equally to all. Just because a particular X has been omitted from the current conversation does not imply any kind of hypocrisy.
Not sure if it is true, but I heard at the atheistconvention.org.au in April next year that there would be “a welcome to country”.
Like I said I am not sure it’s true but then again Catherine “God is Bullsh*t” Deveny does go on about how much she loves yoga.
Welcome to Country acknowledges the *people* who were here first, not their gods/spirits/myths/whatever. People are real, even if their religion is not. As for yoga – what have you got against exercise? Sure it may be a religious tradition in India, but in the West it is not used for that purpose. That’s like arguing that because dance features in many traditional religious observances that an atheist who goes clubbing is a hypocrite.
“Fundamental religious people don’t represent the majority of normal people who oppose gay marriage any more than the radical millitants represent the average Aussie who supports (or doesn’t care) about changing the status of marriage.”
True. They just all think the same.
“I want Aboriginal kids with laptops and enrolled inthe best Universities of the world, not spears and the back blocks of Wadeye.”
Come over to our far superior culture, a culture that is evolved into killing on mass, and exploiting each other.Not only that we will put you to work in our factories for 15 bucks an hour and take away your free spirit and turn you into an automaton.
“I just wish you and your kind would call them on the bulldust creation stories the same way you do with the Christians.”
Ummm I wonder what kind that would be?
“We have a pretty good model you know. Mum, Dad, couple of kids. Dog. House in the suburbs. Job. Two cars.”
How does that ol tune go “Hollywood” Yep a good does of my three sons, Lucille Ball, Happy days, Pat Boone and heaps of good ol apple pie and presto our superior culture. I reckon bring back slavery, wow how good would that be?
“Come over to our far superior culture, a culture that is evolved into killing on mass, and exploiting each other.”
Hey lynot you obviously subscribe to some sort of hippy delusion of the noble savage.
Your desire to see black kids grow up in third world conditions while a couple of hours up the road in Darwin, white kids enjoy the best of everything that Australia has to offer, sickens me
Hey uniquerhys
“Welcome to Country acknowledges the *people* who were here first, not their gods/spirits/myths/whatever. “
Google “spiritual significance of aboriginal welcome to country”
and read all the comments from Aboriginal people how the offering is an acknowledgement of the spiritual connection these folk have with their land.
“Hey lynot you obviously subscribe to some sort of hippy delusion of the noble savage.
Your desire to see black kids grow up in third world conditions while a couple of hours up the road in Darwin, white kids enjoy the best of everything that Australia has to offer, sickens me ”
Bwaaaaaaaaaa there goes me hip replacement again. You haven’t got a clue do you? Back at you. Your condescending ” we know what’s best for our natives shtick ” sickens me. There is no delusion about the noble savage, it was very noble until the white man clapped eyes on them, It was we that stole their land, plied them with grog, stole their children, and up to very recently, had them working on stations in outback Australia for tea and sugar. I remember prior to 1967 they weren’t even counted in the census.
I want what they want, has anyone asked them? No, But! We certainly know what the religious wackos, the uncle Toms and you want don’t we?
I see in further developments on this issue the leader of the opposition Tony (don’t ask don’t tell ) Abbott has confirmed there will be no conscience vote on gay marriage allowed in his party and no change in the current position.
Yep no conscience and the missionary position. No change there then.
“acknowledgement of the spiritual connection these folk have with their land.”
As do white farmers with generations of toil on their farm. Your point?
Many people report a spiritual feeling when witnessing a beautiful sunset or staring up at the stars on a clear night. That feeling is a part of the psychological make-up of our species, for whatever evolutionary advantage it may have conferred along the way somewhere. Organized religion hijacked that feeling for its own purposes, but the feeling itself is not a religion.
TrueFamilies – please go read Mabo v Queenslad (no. 1) (1988) and/or Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982). The Government was denying them land they had all rights to, both from their own land rights system (which good ole’ white man conveniently ignored) and white man’s legal system (Koowarta had purchased the land properly but good ole Bjelke-Peterson did all he could to stop it). This is not a spiritual issue but a plane right to enjoy your property and not have the government abitrarily take it without reasonable compesnation – it is in our constitutuion and it shouldn’t just apply to white people.
[sigh] Abbott is nothing if not predictable. The irony here being that I agree that there should not be a conscience vote – we amend laws ALL THE TIME to protect vulnerable groups or groups exeriencing overt discrimination. Indeed, one of the purposes of the law is cultural change. The shift in culture since things like anti-racial vilificaiton laws has been significant. Even seatbelts are almost always used. Changing laws changes what is defined as wrong or right. That is why it is so critical to change the Marriage act.
Hi True Families
I asked you some good faith questions in the ‘ALP National Conference’ Thread from 2 December but you disapperared from that discussion and never answered them.
Since the same topic is now being discussed and you’re actively participating in it again I thought I’d ask you the same questions here:
Can you explain how your professed leftism leads you to conclude that gay marriage is wrong for Australian society? What principles of progressive/left-wing thought lead you to this conclusion?
You’re obviously an advocate against gay marriage but I haven’t yet seen you explain why you advocate against it? What danger does gay marriage pose to Australian society in your view?
Mondo, there are many strands of leftist “thought” that historically have been critical of homosexuality. These days that is quite rare.
The main argument against gay marriage comes down to the fear that family structures will be weakened by recognition of gay marriage. I don’t see how that is a logical argument at all. If two people make a permanent and public commitment to each other how does it follow that the institution of the family is somehow threatened or weakened?
State recognition of gay marriage will, in my opinion, diminish prejudice against gays and that is a good thing. It is something that promotes social cohesion and allows those gay couples who so choose to celebrate their love for each other with their families and friends. It removes a legal barrier that acts to reinforce prejudice against gays.
Slavery in the US was abolished in 1865 but it took another hundred years for the process of social acceptance and integration to even begin. We should not have to wait a hundred years after the decriminalisation of homosexuality for the real process of social acceptance and integration to get under way.
Hi SB
Thanks for summarising your position. As it happens I agree with everything you’ve said.
However I’m still waiting for True Families to actually provide some sort of explanation for his previous assertions that gay marriage is “not right” for Australian society. I’d like to understand why he thinks this.
I’d especially like to hear how his explanation fits within his professed leftism.
Hi mondo my previous comments are still in moderation.
Thanks Mondo. It is not just leftists that have a problem explaining their position on gay marriage. There are no rational arguments for marriage discrimination. I doubt TF will have anything new to add. If the argument is about promotion of family values, I assume a leftist can put that argument as there is nothing inconsistent between leftism and social conservatism. Take Obama for example.
I find it extrodrinary that the right are the most heavily against marriage equality and yet this represents a massive government intervention into what people do with their private lives – so much for small government.
Jeremy wrote: PS I tried publishing this comment at Muehlenberg’s silly rant, “When Darkness Descends Upon a Nation”, railing against the ALP finally deciding to stop advocating discrimination against people for no good reason. The comment is still unpublished, a week later:
I note that Muehlenberg isn’t the only extreme rightist who censors material not conducive to his point of view.
I see the sister of the resident HeraldSun know-all has contributed a piece concerning her sexuality to Crikey due to her brother not publishing her comments on his blog.
Hey Narc – I don’t think the conservative Right is against government intervention on social issues: it’s government intervention into economic issues they take issue with.
Which is nicely balanced since the progressive Left generally takes the opposite approach.
And SB – I’d add Gillard to the list of socially conservative Leftists (although I think she might be pretending a little bit).
Lefty – are any of True Families’ comments on this thread still locked in moderation?
“I think she might be pretending a little bit”
Gillard has made so many compromises, trampled on so many promises and had so many iterations of Real Julia that she comes across as little more than a bogan zonbie. Maybe she has been poisoned by the damned spot of Rudd’s blood that she can never wash away.
And that’s the problem with Julia.
If a politician will promote policy not because they believe in it but because they think it will make them more popular, then the unfortunate conclusion is that the politician is willing to push ideas they believe to be harmful to our national interests simply in order to retain (or gain) power.
Which means that you can’t trust them to stand up for what they believe in.
And if you can’t trust them to do that then how could you ever justify voting for them?
Mondo – both of our prospective leaders are like this. Abbott is as bad or worse. The reality is that Gillard deserves to lose the next election but the Australian population doesn’t deserve Abbott.
Maybe – although I suspect that Abbott holds more firmly to his principles than Gillard does.
Although he’s committed to the wrong principles if he wants my vote.
Both major parties behave like incoherent spin-merchants. In the past I have reverted to the Greens as a protest vote to send a message but I am increasingly disenchanted with them. I guess I will start looking at some of the libertarian parties.
Yeah, the Greens can be a tad authoritarian in their pursuit of policy goals.
But at least they’re consistent and you know you’re getting what you voted for.
At least we can all agree we want another hung parliament ;p
As in hang the lot of them, Narcotic?
Very much so, I suppose I should’ve said a hanged parliament then 🙂