Helping Christians to make a difference
Dealing with current Issues
Helping Christian families to make a difference
We've just posted a detailed Update on the proposals in FIVE states and the ACT for state same-sex 'marriage' laws.
In addition, we've posted a great article by Augusto Zimmermann, Senior Lecturer in Law at Murdoch University in WA, explaining why such laws are unconstitutional. Essential reading!
Click here to read the Update and Augusto's article.
Naturally, the media, especially the Adelaide Advertiser, who have been vigorously pushing the same sex 'marriage' issue, would like to get rid of SA Senator Cory Bernardi. Yesterday they had an article stating that he was not backing away from the comments he made in the Senate about the ramifications of changing the Marriage Act.
Web VOTE - Does Cory Bernardi have a future in mainstream politics? (link)
Please vote 'YES' to support Cory - currently 58% say 'Yes'!
Brief points from the Media Article
'SA Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has stood by his comments linking gay marriage to bestiality, saying the reaction to his speech in Parliament was "hysterical".'
SALT point: Cory did not actually link one to the other - he talked about the 'possible' consequences of removing the boundaries. '
Liberal Shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis repudiated the comments as injudicious and inappropriate, but noted that Senator Bernardi as a backbencher was free to "indulge" his own opinions. "It's his own view - and I think, shared by hardly anyone," he told Sky News this morning, adding it did not represent the views of the coalition.'
'Malcolm Turnbull, described the Bernardi bestiality speech as extreme and hysterical.'
SALT point: The Coalition had made a Party Room decision of not wanting to 'inflame' the debate out of a fear it would cause some Labor MPs to vote for same-sex 'marriage' to spite the "nasty" Liberals.
'Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young also condemned the comments saying Senator Bernardi wanted to fan intolerance.'
SALT point: NO, Cory was speaking the truth and was not prepared to be silenced out of 'fear of man' - the Greens, of course, would have us believe there is no God and therefore there are no Boundaries!! Given the promotion of bestiality by Peter Singer, who Cory mentioned in his speech, Cory was simply drawing an obvious, slippery slope, conclusion.
For a very well-made case as to why the battle for marriage is far from over, and we must reshape the arguments (or lack of them) to save marriage, we recommend an excellent opinion article by Murray McLeod-Boyle. He highlights the need to develop careful arguments - and points out that we need to be very wary of 'changing definitions'.
The war was not won. The battle still rages by Murray McLeod-Boyle, Reformation Ministries. October 2012.
Murray suggests some action points towards the end of his article. Contact details for MPs are on our web site. Follow the links and then write a personal email to them.
The UN is again considering 'defamation of religion' laws. Last year a 'compromise motion' on 'religious tolerance' - with similar aims - was approved by the UN General Assembly (source).
We want Australia to oppose - and vote AGAINST - both 'defamation of religion' laws and also 'religious tolerance' laws.
See the ACTION section below - contact PM Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Bob Carr.
In Victoria, we are acutely aware of the problems caused by the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, introduced by the Bracks Labor government in 2001. The most high-profile case, involving Pastor Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries, caused huge angst and took five years to 'resolve'!
Religious vilification laws create disharmony and unrest. They are often used to shut down debate and criticism.
At the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), made up of 57 Islamic nations, has been lobbying to get 'defamation of religion' laws implemented for at least a decade (they started in 1999). The first such attempts, by Pakistan, were called 'Defamation of Islam'. They've since changed the NAME, but not the intent!
A few weeks ago, Dutch MP Geert Wilders applied for a visa to visit Australia to speak at a series of meetings organised by Q Society.
Although his staff had been granted visas, no visa had been granted (or refused) for Geert. With the tour scheduled for mid-October, time was running out. A letter campaign and an Open Letter from Q Society were organised.
Until yesterday, a 'visa' for Geert Wilders had not been issued. Last night, Q Society, which is hosting the tour, announced it would put out a Media Release tomorrow - stating that the tour has now been postponed until the third week of February 2013, due to the problems of obtaining a visa for Geert Wilders.
Paul Sheehan had an insightful article in the SMH about this lack of 'liberalism' re the visa.
Visa insult a betrayal of liberalism SMH, October 1, 2012.
TODAY, the government has announced that they will not 'block' a visa for Geert Wilders!
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has now said he will not block a visa - but has written an Opinion piece in The Australian saying he disagrees with Geert Wilders views which are "offensive".
Nothing to gain from Wilders ban by: Chris Bowen
From: The Australian October 02, 2012
"GEERT Wilders is wrong. His views are offensive. To read his writings is to be struck by their ignorance and their wrongheaded views of other people's beliefs. It has been accurately reported in recent weeks that the Dutch far-right politician and anti-Islamist has applied for a visa to undertake speaking engagements in Australia...."
Media Report in The Australian about Mr Bowen's article. Critic of Islam Geert Wilders in line for visit visa 2/10/2012.
The question we ask is, why did Mr Bowen readily grant a visa to Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Taji Mustafa....
Good news! Last night the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted AGAINST state-based 'same-sex marriage'.
There are 15 Members in the Legislative Council, 13 of whom are Independents (plus one Labor and one Liberal). Every Member spoke on the Bill - the vote was 8 votes to 6.
But the battle isn't over
Despite the defeat, Premier Lara Giddings says she will fight on for 'equality'... "We will continue this. It's not the end. It's the beginning".
Co-sponsor, Greens leader Nick McKim, said, "The Council's chosen fear over love, the Council's chosen division over unity, and it's chosen the 19th century over the 21st century. And the Council tragically today has held Tasmania back."
Ruth Forrest, an outspoken Member in the Council who 'supports same-sex marriage', introduced a motion last night to have the matter considered by a select Committee, especially the constitutional issues - the ABC reports that debate on the motion is expected to be held next month.
Read ABC report. Read report at The Mercury.
Activist Rodney Croome says they will lobby against the Members who voted against the Bill.
Once again, most Members focused mostly on marriage being between a 'man and a woman' and the cost to Tasmania of a High Court challenge because marriage is not a matter for the States. They generally did not criticise homosexuality itself, with its health risks and unnatural behaviour. It is seen to be 'politically incorrect' to deal with those aspects. However, if they aren't dealt with it simply becomes a matter of 'rights' and 'equality'.
This has been a long-term strategy of the homosexual lobby.
Dennis Altman, a homosexual activist who is now a Professor at Latrobe University, wrote, in 1983, "The greatest single victory of the gay movement has been to shift the debate from behaviour to identity, thus enforcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens, rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behaviour." (The Homosexualisation of America, Page 9).
Interestingly, Dennis Altman doesn't personally agree with same-sex 'marriage', although he thinks the 'restrictions' should be removed.
Read his article - click here.
ACTION . . .
If you live in Tasmania, please contact your Legislative Council member.
If they voted AGAINST 'same-sex marriage', please thank them for their vote.
If they voted FOR 'same-sex marriage', express your disappointment and concern.
In both cases, please ask them not to support a motion to have the matter considered by a 'select Committee'.
For details on Members of the Legislative Council - click here.
If you don't know your Legislative Council electorate or Members, click here to find out who they are!