It is no wonder that they do not want Australians to have a say about maintaining the status quo. The numbers are not on their side so they hornswoggle about everything except the issue.
When they say "leave it to the Parliament to decide." and "That is what they have been elected for." and "That will decide the issue" I refer them to the amendments that were made by the Australian Parliament under the Howard government. The law was amended to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is what the Parliament decided. Why is that not "once and for all" as they now want to change.
Australia has inherited a law which has never before had to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. But, because of social engineering progressives the Howard government found it necessary to do what they had been elected to do. "Determine the law and decide the issue."
The point is that the Parliament has already made the decision. The progressive left wing now push the issue again.
Former Justice Kirby obfuscates. It is simply not true to say that Australians are not permitted to determine as a society what marriage is. It is simply not true to say that it is hateful to want to maintain the status quo.
Because they believe that they can control the press and potentially a majority of politicians they want to avoid democracy. The want to avoid us enforcing our opinion.
I oppose changing the legal interpretation of marriage 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 Justice Kirby's and Senator Wong's rights, and everybody else's rights for legal parity. I have repeatedly said this.
I certainly stand up for their 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.