When I was politicking by standing on the side of the road on the Monday morning of the Orlando massacre I was protesting again against intolerant mono cultural Islam and I was spontaneously joined by a dozen people.
True it is that I had planned to campaign that day anyway but I was as shocked as anyone to see that the warnings that I have been giving to "Gay Australia" about the risks that Islam posed to them had come home to roost in such a blatant overt act of targetted violence.
At about 8 a.m. I used social media to call people to join me in protest. Within a few hours a dozen turned up.
It was unfortunate that the media attending did not put to air the views of one parent there who came because he holds realistic and grave fears for his son who is a popular stage drag queen performer in Adelaide.
I say these things as introduction to my opposition to changing the legal interpretation of marriage away from its current and historic definition.
It is not all or nothing. I can support much of what the gay lobby wants but I am entitled to disagree without being called hateful.
Since time immemorial human societies, and certainly ours, has known that marriage is between a man and a woman. A fundamental "right of passage" is getting married. We never had to define what it was. We only regulated and recorded it.
The Murphy/Whitlam Family Law Act of 1975 began the dismantling of the importance of marriage when it introduced much easier dissolution. This denigration of one of our basic structures was built on by social engineers to the extent that the Howard conservative government for the first time ever defined in Law that marriage is heterosexual.
I stand alongside Senator Wong's rights, and everybody else's rights for legal parity. I have repeatedly said this.
I certainly stand up for her rights not to be murdered by some islamic barbarian.
Like many left wing extremists the Senator bandies around words which don't mean what she uses them for.
It is not "Hate" speech to have, and express, an opinion that is different to yours.
It is not hate speech to oppose the word marriage being used for legal parity homosexual pair bonding.
It is not "equality" to call different things the same.
Just 1.1% of the population is Lesbian and 1.1% male homosexual. 97.8% of Australia is not.
It is perfectly proper for such a bulk of society to set "norms".
For instance we have an age of sexual consent which is set by us as 17 years old. We enforce that norm with our laws. (please do not suggest that I compare Lesbians with paedophiles).
The point is that our democratic society is entitled to set the norms.
There is no suggestion that anything other than legal parity for same sex marriage but a national referendum as to whether we, the Australian Community, want to radically change the legal meaning of the word "marriage" is perfectly proper.
I, for one, will abide the national decision.