Michael Cook

Tasmania’s absurd push for gay ‘marriage’

Michael Cook
By Michael Cook
Image

September 5, 2012 (Mercatornet.com) - The results of grafting two heads onto one government body became painfully clear in the Australian state of Tasmania last week. Labor Premier Lara Giddings and her coalition partner, Greens leader Nick McKim, jointly guided a same-sex marriage bill through the lower house on Thursday. It was the first time that an Australian house of parliament had passed such a bill.

This, said Ms Giddings, would erase Tasmania’s reputation as the “laughing-stock” of Australia. Mr McKim praised the bill even more rapturously: “Romans chapter 13, verse 10 says, ‘Love does no harm to its neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law’. We are here today to give full expression to love in the laws of our state.”

Even though Tasmania is an island state with only half a million people, this is a significant event. The bill’s fate in the upper house is far from certain. However, if it does become law, it will strengthen the case for same-sex marriage throughout Australia – and elsewhere.

But all the hugging and kissing in State Parliament was a cynical distraction from Lara Giddings’ dismal economic management.

On July 23, the Commonwealth Bank released its State of the States report. It found that Tasmania scored lowest in the country on five key indicators: employment, retail trade, population growth, construction work and housing finance. “Tasmania is underperforming other state and territory economies” said the bank’s chief economist, Craig James, “and arguably is the number one candidate of any regional income redistribution as the Federal Government seeks to share the benefits of the mining boom across the broader Australian economy”.

In other words, Tasmania is set to use the Federal government as an ATM.

Meanwhile, Ms Giddings is living on the other side of the looking glass. At the annual Labor Party conference a fortnight later, she fantasised about making Tasmania “one of the most dynamic small economies in the world, producing high quality niche products and services that are recognised and valued across the globe”. Her nominations for model investments? A museum, a golf course, and a luxury resort.

Somehow, in the mind of the leader of what was once a workers’ party, Tasmanian prosperity is coming a distant second to same-sex marriage. “Labor has had the courage to tackle difficult, complex and challenging areas where progressive action was needed,” Ms Giddings told conference delegates. “There’s no better example than our determination to end all discrimination… on the issue of marriage equality.”

With her party languishing at 23 percent in the polls, she announced five priority areas for social reform over the next two years: legalising surrogacy for same-sex couples, legalising gay marriage, legalising brothels, legalising euthanasia, and liberalising Tasmania’s already liberal abortion law.

This is an ambitious and radical agenda which calls for community consultation. A vigorous media is needed to query and probe the glib claims of lobby groups and a struggling government. It ought to be a golden time for sharp commentary and investigative journalism.

But in Tasmania the media is as sclerotic as the economy. The Mercury, a Murdoch tabloid, has a near monopoly on news in Hobart, the state’s capital.

None of the claims made by supporters of same-sex marriage has been scrutinised as they would certainly be in Mainland states. Instead, The Mercury has scathingly ridiculed opponents as bigots. The Polly cartoon says it all: Ma and Pa Kettle, pot-bellied, jowly, snarling and bewildered. In most cities, insulting its readers’ intelligence this way would have created a fearsome backlash – but The Mercury has monopoly power. 

The most damning example of journalistic complacency is the plausibility of Tasmania legislating for same-sex marriage. Under the Section 51 of the Australian constitution, marriage is a Commonwealth responsibility. So the State law will immediately head for the High Court – costing Tasmanian taxpayers millions of dollars. Even the Premier acknowledges this.

True, there is one lonely constitutional law professor who asserts that Tasmania’s bold move will survive. But other experts are sceptical. Professor Anne Twomey, of the University of Sydney, for example, writes:

“A Tasmanian law permitting same-sex marriage, even if operative, would do little more than facilitate holding a ceremony, drinking champagne and taking photos. It might confer on the parties to a same-sex marriage the status of ‘married’ for the purposes of Tasmanian laws, but it is most unlikely that they would be regarded as legally ‘married’ for the purposes of Commonwealth law or under the law of any other state…”

Instead of being a beacon of progressive intelligence, Tasmania will be a legal laughing-stock.

Another extraordinary claim made for same-sex marriage is that it will bring $100 million into the state if it becomes the first jurisdiction to allow same-sex couples to wed. Gay couples will flood into Tasmania, gay activists have claimed over and over again in The Mercury.

What is the basis for this extraordinary attempt to bribe struggle street Tasmanians?

A back-of-the envelope report by a Massachusetts academic, Lee Badgett. She estimated in February that the economic benefits of same-sex marriage in Australia would range between $161 million (“conservative”) and $742 million (“plausible”). Tasmania’s share would be $96 million. Did The Mercury analyse this key figure? Nope.

Tasmania’s incompetent government and amateurish leadership are often blamed on the Realpolitik of life in a coalition. Labor can only cling to power by snuggling up to Greens who think that Tasmanians can support their families by working as wedding planners or sherpas for overweight eco-tourists.

But Tasmanians have also been betrayed by their media. It’s bad enough living in a state with the highest unemployment rate and the highest suicide rate of any state. When journalists bask in Lara Giddings’ silken smiles and toss back her absurd rationalisations like a shot of scotch, they are betraying their responsibilities in the democratic process.

Where were the hard questions about denying children the civil right to have both a father and a mother, about whether same-sex parenting harms children, about the rights of people who object to schools teaching children about gay sex, about genuine community support for gay marriage, about social engineering, about whether gays actually want same-sex marriage?

The depth of The Mercury’s misgivings was revealed on Saturday. It ran a front page photo of local-girl-made-good Rachael Taylor, now a underwear model and Hollywood starlet. She gave the bill a ringing endorsement. “Well done Tassie! Well done!” she said.

Still, in the end, it is the politicians who make the laws.

An exchange in Parliament last Thursday between Labor Deputy Premier Bryan Green and Greens MP Cassy O’Connor tells you all you need to know about the depth of their concern. “It is not a big issue really, when it all boils down, is it?” he said. “No, it’s not,” she replied. “It’s just love.”

No wonder these guys can’t pull the Apple Isle out of its economic hole. They’re just too dumb.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. This article reprinted under a Creative Commons License.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Sofia Vazquez-Mellado

, ,

11-year-old in Uruguay refuses to abort after rape

Sofia Vazquez-Mellado
By Sofia Vazquez-Mellado

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, May 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An 11-year-old girl in Uruguay is making headlines for refusing to abort after being raped by a 41-year-old relative. Pro-abortion organizations in the country are using the case to ask for a broadening in the law, which allows for abortion up until 12 weeks gestation, 14 weeks in cases of rape, and up to 9 months when the life or health of the mother are at risk or when the baby is “unviable”.

Local media report that the girl, who is 18 weeks pregnant, lived with her abuser for over a year prior to the pregnancy. Her mother is now asking authorities to make her abort, but according to the local newspaper La Diaria, a team of psychiatrists from Uruguay’s Child and Adolescent Institute (INAU) has said that “the girl’s position has been confirmed without a doubt: she wishes to be a mother.”

According to her relatives, the girl suffers from a mild mental incapacity, although she is not considered handicapped.

In a press conference, Susana Muñiz, president for the Association of State Health Services and former minister of health, said: “An 11-year-old girl obviously has a body not prepared to be pregnant, with a very small uterus.”

However, according to Monica Silva, head of the INAU’s Health Division, “There is no risk to the life of the girl nor that of the baby. We cannot force her to abort.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“Even if her mother wants it, it would be inhuman to force her to abort,” continued Silva. “The fact that there was a rape doesn’t allow me to force her to abort. This [aborting] may seem like a protection of her rights but it is against the girl’s will.”

Nevertheless, a press release “demanding” that the girl abort “immediately” was issued by several pro-abortion NGOs soon after, on May 12. “The hypocritical and bureaucratic system allows for her rights to be undermined without considering the cost this will bring to the girl,” it read.

“Who will take charge now to stop the undermining of her rights and protect her health and her life? How much longer do we need to wait before somebody decides responsibly on the interruption of that pregnancy?” it concluded.

In her interview, Silva also said the girl’s parents “never visited, with exception of one of the six siblings she has.”

 “The best that could happen would be to ensure that she has a ‘welcoming family,’ that would receive the girl with her baby,” continued Silva. “I doubt we can achieve that because it’s hard to find families who want this challenge.”

The girl remains under INAU’s care and her abuser has been imprisoned.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

,

Christian jeweller made gay couples’ rings but still got targeted by gay lobby

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

MOUNT PEARL, Newfoundland, May 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) –While North Americans are used to reading about Christian business people being fined and excoriated for refusing to cater to homosexual weddings, Newfoundland has added a novel twist: there a Christian jeweller has been punished financially and deluged with hate mail even though he did do business with a homosexual couple.

Nicole White and Pam Renouf liked the service they got from Esau Jardon of Today’s Jewellers in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, who took their deposit and proceeded to design and build them two engagement rings. They even recommended the store to friends.

But by the time one friend went there, the Mexican-born Jardon had put up a sign in his shop window marking Mother’s Day—and his strong, traditional Christian beliefs: “The Sanctity of Marriage IS UNDER ATTACK; Help Keep Marriage Between Man & Woman,” it read.

The friend went ballistic. Her picture of the sign went viral. The couple went back on their deal and back to the store, demanding their deposit. Today’s Jewellers’ Facebook page was so deluged with hundreds of hateful emails and many threats that Jardon and his brother, who is his business partner, have to shut it down.

LifeSiteNews asked White if Jardon had been punished enough. “Omigod, yes,” she responded. “Way, way too much.” But earlier she explained to a local newspaper why the couple canceled their order. “The ring symbolizes love, and just knowing that that’s the sign that they have up there — every time I look at my ring, yes, I’ll think of us, clearly, but also everything we went through. So I don’t want my ring from there anymore. I just want my refund.”

At first, she reported, “They just said that that's their beliefs, and they think they can put up whatever they want. I just said it was very disrespectful, it's very unprofessional and I wanted a refund,” White said. “I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I don't think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Jardon, at first, was loath to return it, lest this be seen as an apology for his beliefs. Reached in Toronto, he told the St. John’s Telegram, “When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada... and we accept the whole package... I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business.”

But what is sauce for the gander is not sauce for the geese, or for the LGBT community that crowded onto the bandwagon, or for the CBC which was all too ready to label the jeweller’s sign “homophobic.”

However, some have offered support and sympathy. Rod Dreher, blogging at The American Conservative, observed that only so-called sexual minorities expected this kind of treatment. “Is a fundamentalist Christian permitted to send her osso buco back to the kitchen if she discovers that homosexual hands cooked it? Of course not. Some delicate snowflakes are more delicate than others.”

Referring to recent decisions by courts and human rights tribunals against Christian vendors who refused to serve homosexuals, Dreher concluded on an ironic note. The pressure on Jardon to return the deposit marked “the next phase in the March of Progress. You must not only bake the cake, or arrange the flowers, or make the ring, you must hold the correct opinion when you do it.”

Jardon defends his right to his own opinion. “One of the reasons my family chose to move to Canada was the rights that it offered, the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, both of which at the time seemed to be very limited in Mexico,” he said.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Canadians headed to the ballot box for the fall federal election should remember the right to life is 'the most basic thing in society,' the archbishop tells LifeSiteNews. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , ,

Exclusive: Clinging to Christ will help those struggling with sexual identity, says Montreal’s archbishop

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OTTAWA, May 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Montreal’s archbishop, Christian Lépine, weighed in on what the Catholic Church actually has to offer people struggling with the biological sex they were born with, telling LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview that it’s no mistake that God creates the human person as male or female and that every person must look for their identity within a “view of God.”

“The teachings of the Church as such, its most basic one, is that we’re made in the image of God. That's always the starting point. And when you lose track of that — that you're made in the image of God — then somehow you come to lose trust in who you are as a human being, and you know less of who you are, and you don't know anymore who you are, and you [find yourself] looking for your own identity outside of a view of God,” Lépine told LifeSiteNews last week one day prior to the annual National March for Life that drew an estimated 25,000 pro-life advocates.

Following the first book of the Bible, where it is stated that God created human beings as “male and female,” the Catholic Church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the male/female binary is God’s plan for mankind.

As the book of Genesis (1:27) states: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses that recognizing and preserving the male/female sexual difference is necessary for a healthy society.

“Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out,” the Catechism states.

Lépine said that anytime questions about sexual identity arise for the faithful, “we must go back to the basics,” namely that “every human is created in the image of God, and of course, biblically, every human being exists as a woman or as a man.”

The archbishop’s words are foreign to mainstream notions of so-called ‘gender fluidity’ where male/female difference is construed as a social construct and ultimately as a personal choice.

Lépine acknowledged that some people suffer when it comes to accepting their own sexual identity as either a male or female based on biological characteristics.

“Sometimes people have sufferings about their own desires, or about their own sense of identity, or about the fact that masculinity and femininity exists, or about the fact that you as ‘human being’ [exist] as a male or female, as a man or as a woman.”

He called the male/female binary “a reality that is part of the [human] experience,” adding that it is also “taught in the Bible.”

Lépine stressed that the Church does not leave people “looking for a meaning in their lives and their own sense of identity” to struggle on their own, but offers them many helps and aids, including a clear anthropology on the nature of the human person.

“As Christians, we have the Bible to help people. We have Jesus Christ to help people. We have faith in God to help people. So, going back, [we must be] conscious that we are made in the image of God. And our own sexuality — what is the meaning of being a man or woman — is related to our vocation to love. And, every human being as such, made in the image of God — being a man or woman — is called to love.”

“So, how [are we] to help [such] people? You can talk about things theoretically, which is one thing. But also, we have to be conscious of people who live through situations where they're looking for their own identity and we need, I think, the Bible and faith to help them.”

Fluid notions of gender have been criticized by Pope Francis on at least three occasions, and prior to this, by Pope Benedict XVI.

“Gender theory is an error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion," Pope Francis told young people during his voyage to Naples, Italy last March.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

In his 2012 Christmas greeting, Pope Benedict condemned gender theory as a “profound falsehood” since it denies the male and female sex as a “given element of nature.” According to Benedict, instead of acknowledging that God created people male and female, gender theory posits the existence of sexual social constructions that people can decide to conform to or not.

“The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.”

“When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being,” Benedict concluded. “The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears,” he said.

Earlier in the interview, Lépine spoke about the need to “promote relentlessly life and respect for life” in the face of the country’s top court setting the legal stage for allowing doctors to end the lives of their patients under the pretext of compassion and mercy.

“You don't take care of someone when you suppress the life of someone, because you're not solving a problem. You're suppressing the person. It doesn't work,” he said.

Referring to the upcoming federal election this fall, the archbishop called “life and the right-to-life and dignity of the person” an “important subject, because it's the most basic thing in society.” 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook