The Postal Survey: “What are you so scared of?”
By John Haly
The debate
The starter gun has officially “legally” fired on the government’s campaign for the alternative postal survey formerly known as the plebiscite. The all too predictable debate surrounding the question of Marriage Equality in Australia has finally begun in earnest.
Initial salvos have already been shot across the bow by the “No” campaign in recent weeks, raising uncertainty amongst the uncommitted. Despite this, the polls have long demonstrated a clear majority of Australians wanting Marriage Equality for some years. What is interesting to note here – presumably due to the prolonged nature of the political resistance – is that the “no” campaign’s latest arguments against Marriage Equality reform appear to have evolved.
In part, this could simply be due to the rebuttal against the “no” campaign’s original arguments having already been trotted out ad nauseam. Indeed, Eric Abetz, a long time serial disparager of anything remotely “gay” / homosexual, published his objections in the Canberra Times in 2015. I penned a long response of my own, although it is ground I am not looking to retread here.
Hurry up Australia, you’re going to be last in the race.
The earlier anti-reform arguments haven’t been abandoned entirely. Andrew Hastie has rehashed them recently. At a cursory glance, the local “No” campaign in their latest tack would seem to be most obviously singing from the same song sheets already utilised by largely unsuccessful opposition campaigns run by organised religious interests opposed to similar reforms (now won) overseas. But on closer inspection, the reality is more invidious.
This “new” campaign angle is really not so new. It is in many ways an age-old playbook of home-grown homo/trans/bi-phobia harkening back to every major campaign conducted in Australia opposing any and all LGBTI legal reform dating back to decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 80s. But with the re-purposed survey upon us and their lack of success to date in prosecuting these earlier positions, the “No” campaign has revved up their anti-Marriage Equality rhetoric. Demonstrated by suddenly expanding their oppositional repertoire. Evidenced by the surprising emails, I began receiving from the “oktosayno” website. While the arguments may have shifted subtly, I would suggest if I may, that the reasoning on display is still not that nuanced, intellectually rigorous or engaging. But if burying yourself in disingenuously privileged and solipsistic opposition for its own sake doesn’t sound like your idea of dear leader Malcolm’s long-promised exciting times, I’ve already done the work, so you don’t have to.
Sodomy is sexual abuse
The next generation will bring marriage equality into being.
Religious concerns are often based on the fallacious belief that sodomy, as it was expressed in the Bible, was about homosexuality. But even an ABC article has pointed out that “Sodomy”, as it was expressed in the biblical literature, is about rape and sexual abuse. That the church has illegitimately changed the meaning of the word, is understandable. If you’re in the Catholic priesthood, you wouldn’t want the bible to be condemning predilections that your organisation’s members are infamous for, especially concerning small children. More surprising is that “homosexuality” as a word – not in existence till the late 18th century – has found its way into the Bible. Christ said nothing about homosexuals but had a lot to say about “loving one another” which seems to be a point many in the evangelical community have missed.
Procreation
Marriage Equality provides legal protections for Children
Then there is the recurring issue of children. Often raised by those most in denial about the already large numbers of same sex couples that are quite happily and successfully producing and raising children. Concern for children seems restricted to those that are raised by heterosexual couples, despite the fact that when it comes to family stability, studies are proving that heterosexual parents are not always managing better family outcomes. But the opponents to Marriage Equality seem to be unduly concerned about issues of procreation.
Procreation and Marriage are not necessarily related. Either one may be the cause of the other to occur, but the sequencing can fall on either side of the other. Alternatively, procreation or marriage may happen in isolation without the other ever being involved. The Marriage vows in contemporary western society are usually about an expression of love between two adults. Children aren’t involved, even if they are already at the ceremony standing by their mom or dad or step-mum or step-dad. It’s not their marriage!
Marriage Legality
Beyond the emotive distractions, Marriage equality is about human rights
Marriage Equality is about justice and law, not about religion and procreation. Modern religious communities have appropriated “Marriage” and claimed it is theirs to dictate how and to whom it should be applied. However, marriage as a religious undertaking not only predates these religions but in the Christian’s case, it wasn’t even included as a religious celebration till the 9th century. Even then the ceremony didn’t include a priest till the 12th Century. Back then, as Peg Helminski very smartly points out, Marriage was, in fact, a contract between two men.
“In the beginning, marriage was a relationship between two men. A man exchanged goods or services with a girl’s father to procure a virgin bride—a bride who likely became one of several wives. This way, he could assure himself that any children he supported held valid claim to his property. Yes, marriage began as a business transaction to assure male property rights. Often, marriage provided other benefits; increasing the family labour force, acquiring a trade agreement or securing a political alliance.” Marriage and its legal prerogatives have changed a lot since then, regardless of any religious claims to inviolable and unwavering immutability.
Marriage, today, should be about the two non-related Adults legally acknowledging their love for one another. I am appalled that I have to expressly use the term “non-related” as I have seen social media claims suggesting it a slippery slope to incestuous relationships. In the unfounded nature of arguments that arise, the assumption that the parties are not direct descendants or siblings, including adopted (by law) relationships, has to be re-stated. Disallowing relatives are all outlined in Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1961 under the heading “Void marriages” Section 23. Not being able to marry minors is in Part 2. Marriage equality is about changing the Act’s definition of Marriage as between “two people” instead of “a man and a woman” and removing section 88EA in Part 5 (added by Howard), not Parts 3 or 2.
The marriage equality movement wants to change only five words for two in the Act and remove the section Howard added in 2004 because he realised the Act was “gay-friendly”. That renders genderless, the subject of who can legally marry. In short, “two people“, not exclusively “a man and a woman“. So no Eric Abetz, polygamists, need not apply. Also prohibited by Part 3! Nobody in the Gay and Trans lobby groups is asking you to change Parts 3 or 2 so why do you – as a Lawyer – not understand?
Church denial
Marriage Equality is about equal human rights not exclusivity for some.
Church’s will still retain the right to deny marriage ceremonies from people they don’t want to have married in their churches. Irrespective of whether they are Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, non-attendees, the great spaghetti monster worshippers, or even gay. (Part 4, Division 2, Section 47 of the Marriage Act) It is about legal equality not ceremonial! It is, not about excluding a group in the community, even if they follow the great flying spaghetti monster. (The supreme creator of the universe – OK I am getting personal here, and I must confess in the interests of transparency, to being a signed up member of that “church”). It is about allowing a relatively significant minority group access to the rights and privileges the vast community already has. It’s access to the legal (not religious, not procreational) right to be married. Marriage ratified by the State, not the Church.
Political Correctness
Resistance to political correctness as an argument is odd or at the very least, anti-social. Yes, extreme aspects of PC have become draconian. But marriage equality isn’t about being draconian; it is about being fair. For the most part, political correctness is what everybody who isn’t a bigot, calls politeness. Yes, Mr George Brandis and Mr Scott Morrison, you do have the option (perhaps rather than right) to be a Bigot, but the rest of us want a civil interaction that will build a cohesive society that binds us all together, not separates us. The likes of Peter Dutton, Andrew Bolt, and Tony Abbott may rail against political correctness, but if the alternative is the sort of hate speech and fear mongering you lot love to express quite freely, the rest of us wouldn’t mind skipping. Political Correctness started as a “counterweight to prevailing orthodoxies and power,” and although it in particular cases turned oppressive and shrill, it originated out of trying to protect communities such as the gay ones, and as such, still has value and relevance. Marriage Equality is working to do that. So despite the enduring prevailing will amongst the oppressed and marginalised to speak truth to power, the “no” campaign’s freedom of speech is still equally well preserved.
The unbeatable argument
Vote “Yes” loudly!
There is one “No” campaign argument for which I have no rebuttal. It is one advanced in one of the many satirical pieces that arose out of opposition to the first televised Ad of mothers talking about concerns for their cross dressing children and safe school issues. (Small note: Safe schools is about bullying in schools and has nothing to do with marriage equality, people). The counter Ad shows young women talking about how she had planned her marriage for months but that it would never begin to compete with gay individuals who have been planning their marriage for decades. That “wedding competition” line has to be the most valid argument for the “No” vote campaign. It made me laugh and then realise, that’s quite a valid fear. You’d better believe they have been waiting for that day for years. It will come, and the weddings will be fabulous!!
This article was originally published on Australia Awaken.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
33 comments
Login here Register here-
Zoltan Balint -
Kronomex -
Terry2 -
Zathras -
Kronomex -
Kaye Lee -
Kyran -
Zoltan Balint -
Mark Needham -
Mark Needham -
wam -
Zoltan Balint -
Shutterbug -
Mark Needham -
Zoltan Balint -
Zathras -
Zathras -
johno -
Terry2 -
Terry2 -
Mark Needham -
Mark Needham -
Rhonda -
Mark Needham -
Rhonda -
Kronomex -
Kronomex -
Möbius Ecko -
John Haly -
John Haly -
John Haly -
corvus boreus -
Kronomex
Return to home pageIt is only human to fear what you have not been exposed to before or when you walk down a path not traveled before. It’s part of survival mechanism. That is when your imagination takes over from logic or knowledge. It is very clever of the LNP not to tell us exactly what will change if the result is YES. That way fear will dominate and the NO people can say anything and you can not prove them wrong with facts.
Gads, my plebiscite, er, poll, um, non-binding vote form showed up. It will be incredibly difficult to tick “Yes” because of all the articulate, tempered, non-discriminatory, polite, and caring words from the “No” side of the argument.
Kronomex
I have just been reading about the Church Minister in Victoria who has refused to marry a hetero couple because they showed support for same sex marriage on their facebook page : now, that is the slippery slope when the religious zealots want to control our minds and our opinions !
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/15/turnbull-defends-church-that-refused-to-marry-couple-backing-same-sex-marriage
There was a time in our history when “whites’ were not allowed to marry aboriginals and WW2 returned servicemen were not allowed to bring Japanese war brides into the country.
How many families were torn apart by “mixed” (ie Protestant/Catholic) marriages in the 50’s, which some parts of the Church only begrudgingly agreed to perform?
Even now there are some pharmacists who will not sell contraceptives and many doctors who will not prescribe birth control medications for women.
One day we may even see supermarket checkout operators refusing to sell or handle pork products because it offends their religious belief.
The only thing all religions have in common is ignorance, intolerance and hypocrisy and the convenient provision of an excuse for personal bigotry.
The real reason many are against this survey is because they are personally offended by homosexuality.
Other “abominations” listed in the Bible include tattoos, shellfish, pork and many other conveniently overlooked items.
Divorce is definitely a no-no so in order to preserve the “sanctity” of marriage perhaps we should campaign for no divorce instead.
Terry2, I read the same article with a large amount of disgust at the behaviour of this “christian”. Then Malcolm the Meek having a bleat about the rights of churches to do what they want made me feel even more ill.
The church can do whatever it wants to OTHER people but, when the Anglican vicar refused to marry the Catholic Lucy Hughes to the Presbyterian Malcolm Turnbull, he went ballistic and bullied the man into complying.
“Your petty sectarian approach is unconstitutional. The Church of England is the religion of the State. You are a servant of the Crown, not materially different from an ambassador or an admiral. It is your constitutional duty to prevent fornication in your parish,” said Malcolm to the vicar.
“Marriage Equality is about justice and law, not about religion and procreation.”
Oh dear, here we go again. Another ‘lefty’ trying to bring reality to surreality. It was only a few decades ago that I repeatedly witnessed my younger brother getting his knuckles rapped, because he wrote with his left hand. It is, after all, an inescapable fact that being a ‘lefty’ is a sin. Apparently, if I stood between my brother and the ‘Nun’, I was encouraging his ‘sinfulness’. We have advanced so little, in a mere few decades. Notwithstanding I was a ‘righty’, protecting a ‘lefty’ was equally sinful.
When less than 25% of marriages take place in churches, how is it that churches get to define what marriage is? Maybe (only?) in the absence of a government. After all, we haven’t had government for nigh on four years.
When procreation is more likely to occur from a ‘lovers tryst’, often alcohol (or ignorance) fueled, rather than a desire to reproduce (regardless of marital status), is surely a ‘first world’ problem?
It’s not like we need to protect the progeny of our indiscretions, is it?
Heaven forbid. They may be of colour. They may be female. They may be poor (vicariously, through their parents). Surely, such indiscretions don’t warrant protection?
That there may be two loving parents who would take those ‘indiscretions’ into their care doesn’t warrant consideration.
I’m trying, really hard, to understand these gits. I’m at the point of thinking they have nothing to say.
“What are you so scared of?”
Surely, there is nothing to fear, but fear itself?
Good luck, talcum. Sleep tight.
Thank you Mr Haly and commenters. Take care
The nun saying that writing with the left hand is not making a judgment, she is only doing what she has been told. That is ‘THE’ problem. How many people will THINK before they do what they have been gold.
My husband and I, really hope, that with this enactment of marriage, that children, will at last be ours to have and hold.
Kaye, as good as you gave Malcolm Turnbull.
The whole question is completely out of hand. Let the poor buggers, do as they see fit.
But do not deny, those who disagree, the right….”To, actually disagree”.
The same right, that is allowed to you, “To Disagree”.
Called Democracy,
I think…?
Mark Needham
PS. Please, let us start allowing people to “Object, and or Deny”.
Zathras. September 15, 2017 at 3:50 pm
Could you name the pharmacy, that doesn’t sell, condoms. Really would like to know.
no smart arse comment,
Mark Needham
Sadly the ‘no’s have ignorance on their side and a media quick to show gays and supporters as ‘lefty thugs’
None of the no voters have answered my call for a reason but one and:
“The main reason why many, myself included, will vote NO in the London-awaited plebiscite.
The sneers, accusations of homophobia, racism, bigotry, the bullying that has emanated from the extremists on the YES side threatening to push for a doctor’s deregistration, renaming Margaret Court Arena and boycotting Coopers for posting a rational, polite debate of the issues online also contributed in some way, as they show the weakness in the current laws on the edges, sometimes closer to the middle, of the debate.
It really is a pity, as the basic concept is good, and I would much prefer to be supporting it.”
ps
Terry2 the perverse logic of this ‘debate’ is seen in front of the church where the occupant changed his mind about marrying the couple because the woman will vote yes. the sign at the entrance says ALL WELCOME.
mark the right to disagree should have the priority of evidence not belief. Have you heard an earthly objection to saying yes?
My previous comment at the end ‘gold’ should be ‘told’. ONE AND ONLY QUESTION I HAVE – Who the FU#K decided that anyone other than the one that will OUT OF LOVE vipe my ass if I am sick needs the approval of the Australian population before they can do it by LAW or determine under which conditions ‘I’ as a lesbian can exist with my partner and if they ever … ever … leave me … under WHAT law I can sue their ass off.
” Church Minister in Victoria who has refused to marry a hetero couple because they showed support for same sex marriage on their facebook page”
Good. Another idiot making Churches even more irrelevant. At this rate we’ll be rid of those scourges within the decade.
Wam,
To disagree, here, on the question of gay marriage, is not about fact, but is actually, either faith or opinion.
To agree on fact,….what fact., What factual scientific evidence is there.?
The question, is entirely, not about fact. If it were, then the facts, would be……(as normal, disputed) I jest, but facts are, exactly that.,facts.
Regarding the earthly objection, I don’t quite follow.
Any reason, to vote either way, is purely based on personal thoughts and feelings. Neither is right not wrong.
But to aggressively deny one party to their right, to be correct or wrong, is whimsical at the least.
Being belted around the ” head” and being called ” moronic” doesn,’t help., For either case!
That it descends into vitriolic, acerbic name calling, is the way of a conversation these days. To have your say, in defiance of the way your heart would normally direct, because of what has been said….yeah….it is up to you.
I May not agree with your Yes idea, but it is far more honest to yourself, than making your mark, because of what some bastard, like me has said.
It is your call,
Great being in a democracy.
You deadshot moronic prick……?
Mark Needham
PS. I do hope the irony of my comment is treated as it should????
NO = fear
Yes = why do you want to join the stupid people of selling your self to another and devote your life by law till the end of time
My answer is yes – it is only human and love
Mark Needham,
As requested – I’ve heard various stories about chemists not selling condoms over the years – especially in the USA.
Here’s an old local story about condoms and also contraceptive pills – http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholic-a-chemist-but-he-wont-sell-the-pill-20091010-grka.html
It may be a few years old and they don’t advertise their stance – but it does happen.
Mark,
A couple of other examples –
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/no-sex-please-were-chemists/news-story/9cc098e6ee756c29c89d8ea7e0bd36e8?sv=56a7f6755c26c716b4466be2ee35c5f8
http://www.mamamia.com.au/catholic-chemist-contraceptive/
I personally don’t have a problem with business owners taking a moral stance (as long as they advertise that fact) but there are also cases where staff working in some businesses refuse to dispense items for religious reasons.
An example is the woman in the USA who refused to hand over marriage licences to gay couples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis
(despite have been married four times herself).
What will the Government stance be in these cases?
What specific “freedoms” will they protect and how?
@ Mark Needham & PS. Please, let us start allowing people to “Object, and or Deny”.
People HAVE BEEN/ARE objecting and denying so what is your point ?
What this is all building towards is the extent to which the religious safeguards and protections impact on the passage of this legislation which, of course, we will not see until we have voted : ever heard of buying a pig in a poke ?
There is a strong probability that if this opinion poll gets up that the legislation will get bogged down in the parliament as the religious protections and safeguards may go too far for us to tolerate and the probability is that Labor and the minor parties will oppose the legislation and then be blamed by the government for not allowing it to proceed.
I have a bad feeling about this whole process which seems to be designed to wedge the nation into supporting a legislative change that will be totally unacceptable to reasonable people.
We really must insist on seeing the proposed legislative changes before we vote.
Just following on to my previous comment. I see that Turnbull has offered John Howard an opportunity to contribute to the final Bill to be decided by the parliament in December after the postal vote.
johnoSeptember 16, 2017 at 6:16 am
Of course there is disagreement.
The “allow” bit that I am making, is to allow others their opinion, without being told, that you are a moron, a racist, uneducated, stupid, idiot, ignorance, bully, black, white, homophobic, uncaring………
It is child school ground “talk”, “Ahhh you’re a poo poo”.
Vote, how you like, a democracy allows you that right, without vilification.
Voting,
Mark Needham
Zathras. Thanks. We may agree or disagree, but it is a democracy.
Glad to be a native of Australia, than in Myanmar, Bosnia, Syria, North Korea………….
Again, Thanks,
Mark Needham
Mark Needham, re the refusal of contraception comment by Zathras that seemed to confound you: it is indeed a common experience reported by women that they have been refused the emergency contraceptive (morning after pill) by some Chemists. This product is made available over the counter, but some Chemists choose not to provide it. It happens. A lot!
Rhonda and johno.
CONFOUND.
cause surprise or confusion in (someone), especially by not according with their expectations.
“the inflation figure confounded economic analysts”
synonyms: amaze, astonish, dumbfound, stagger, surprise, startle, stun, stupefy, daze, nonplus;
This is what I am talking about johno, as you see, I am now “confounded”.
Doesn’t matter,
Mark Needham
PS. Not to start a brawl here, but reckon the female of the species is best at this stuff, Hey!
Hey Mark
Responses to your question clearly don’t matter to you so I think I’ll ignore your leading questions from hereon.
You’re behaving like a dickhead – do you need a dict for that one
It’s sickening how the Mad Monk, Bonkers Bernadi and other assorted “christians”…oh yes, must not forget Archbishop Anthony Fisher, who told CEO’s to butt out of the SSM debate, have managed to turn it into the complete and utter destruction of civilisation as THEY know it. Makes me feel extremely nauseous.
And Rupert’s (all hail the Murdoch, OR ELSE) Spewscrap.com.au main headlines –
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/cnn-segment-goes-into-meltdown-over-inappropriate-comments/news-story/a2cc0019036906e871309ed763791969
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/charlie-tells-abc-podcast-hes-not-sorry-for-stabbing-and-killing-two-people/news-story/83885b1e3c7f637c19a6dfa5ad26d1d6
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/charlie-tells-abc-podcast-hes-not-sorry-for-stabbing-and-killing-two-people/news-story/83885b1e3c7f637c19a6dfa5ad26d1d6
For f–ks sake!! Postal vote news? What postal vote news?
Sigh, desperate little men who feel their patriarchal machismo is being threatened –
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/thought-crime-fears-motivate-samesex-marriage-opponents-at-no-campaign-launch-20170916-gyixe6.html
Wow, Kronomex. I wonder if those speaking or mentioned in that article realise their blatant hypocrisy in accusing the “Yes” campaigners of doing what they, the “No” campaign, are doing.
Kyran,
I must say your personal exposition of the left/right fight (in your case literally) was very entertaining. The fall off in church marriages is an interesting statistic. The year my wife and I married we were later to discover that we were the only couple to be married in that church in the mid-coast of NSW for the entire year. We deliberately changed the phrase “man and a woman” to “two people” in our vows, officiated by a minister I had known for two decades. So having the law changed in exactly this way is something integral to our marriage vows. Four men stood beside us as we made our vows. Two of them were my best friends from college days; the other two were a gay couple (my wife’s best friends) that over a decade later are still together. They had been together for more than a decade before we married. It was for them that my wife wanted to have our vows changed from the standard. I complied. She was my wife to be (and still is), and they were our friends. They are of course still together, and one of them is a journalist although because of medical issues is out of work but recovering. That Journalist helped me by sub-editing the article you have read. I hope that when this is all over, one day we can stand beside them as they take their vows and make promises to them to uphold their marriage and I would be proud and honoured to do so.
Thank you also for your final affirmations
John Haly.
Mark Needham,
I want to thank you for injecting balance into the comments here and calling for more respect in regards the debate. I had a text response from a good friend after I texted a link to my briefer article on this in “Independent Australia”. She is someone whom I have known for over 20 years. She expressed her moral ambiguity as marriage being recreated as not being exclusively between a Man and a woman. She finds the argument morally uncomfortable. She is amongst one of the gentlest people I know. I addressed the issues she brought up very carefully trying not to offend her sense of morality. I pointed her to an account of the story of our wedding (which she attended, and I mentioned in my earlier reply to Kyran). I explained that one of the reasons I fight this battle is to support the two men who stood beside us at our wedding. It is an emotional reasoning. As you said, “to vote, either way, is purely based on personal thoughts and feelings” and that is essentially correct.
You are perfectly right that there are few “facts” involved. Perhaps when Eric Abetz says (as he wrote in 2015 in the Canberra Times) “Study after study, time and time again, shows that children benefit from having a father and mother.” One can refute the facts by declaring, “Besides the numerous studies listed in the AIFS literature study on his government website that says differently, the University of Melbourne researchers that surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social well-being. It found that Children of same-sex parents enjoy better levels of health and wellbeing than their peers from traditional family units.” That is a battle of facts. The rest is a battle of opinion.
There is also value to be found in not wanting your friends to be maligned because of their personal choices that in no way affect the marriages or relationships of others. The battle against prejudice requires that people make a stand in support of the disenfranchised. I think that is an important moral distinction. As I replied to my old friends aforementioned,
“… Nevertheless, I understand that you hold views that hold Marriage as threatened by moral ambiguity and feel concerned. I also feel that legal protection for existing Gay families and their children equally important.”
Again this is a matter of the moral and personal choices one makes to serve one’s own interests or stand for the benefit of others. I have made my choice in this debate.
Anyhow, thank you for stepping in to ask for respectful debate over this.
With gratitude,
John Haly.
Terry2,
The issue of religious safeguards and protections is not at stake here. Perhaps you scanned over my article and did not read it carefully enough. These “safeguards and protections” are already built into Part 4, Division 2, Section 47 of the Marriage Act 1961. I even provided a link to that Act so you could check it out for yourself.
Re-read the section on “Church denial”.
Howard’s offer to assist in protecting religious freedom is completely disingenuous. The whole assertion that these are threatened relies on people’s ignorance of what is in the Act. It is entirely designed to unnerve individuals who are hesitant about the “consequences”. Very few people except Journalists and Politicians read the wording of the Act. The politicians who claim they need extra work with the legislation to provide religious protections and safeguards”, do so because they know you don’t have the time or inclination to read the Act. I did, so I could present the legal issues, as I did in the above article.
You are being bluffed. And apparently, it is working. Again, re-read the section on “Church denial”.
regards,
John Haly.
Not that anyone here on this thread has, but could people (continue to) refrain from calling Mark Needham mean ‘poo poo’ names (eg “deadshot moronic prick”).
Although Mark self-confessedly loves to run up and gratuitously rattle his little stick against fences, purely in order to provoke angry responses from the dogs inside, it seems that loud barking noises hurt both his sensitive ears and tender feelings.
Ps, Thank you, Zatbras, for taking the time and effort to provide solid evidential backing in response to Marks (non-smart arsed) query regarding your claims of chemists denying access to contraception
Just had a flyer from coalitionformarriage.com.au show up in the letter box. Took all of thirty seconds to peruse it and their completely underwhelming “argument” for voting No in its unsubstantiated scare tactics. I am bitterly disappointed that it showed up three days too late because after ticking the Yes box I could have watched the nasty little bit of paper go up in flames in the fireplace.
I had a look at both their joke of a web and twitter site and have come to the conclusion that they are a bunch of first class wankers. They use that now hoary old phrase, much like political parties and the underdog theme, that they are the “silent majority.” For a silent majority they are incredibly vocal and thoroughly nasty.
My favourite page on the web site is –
https://www.coalitionformarriage.com.au/privacy
The really unpleasant privacy paragraph is –
“EXPORT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION OUTSIDE AUSTRALIA
We may disclose your personal information to third party companies and individuals located in the United States of America to assist us to operate our services and the website, and for any other purpose set out in this Privacy Policy.
By using the website and providing us with personal information about you, you consent to the disclosure by us, and to the storage and use of your personal information, in the United States of America where a different privacy protection regime applies.”
The twitter page –
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarriageOz
WOW! A whole 313 followers. Even Scientology, with all it’s nonsense, rates more followers.
The whole lot is “authorised” by that paragon of virtue Lyle Shelton. To quote one Stan Lee’s favourite sayings, “Nuff said!”