≡ Menu

Mark Latham: Same-Sex Yes Vote will Open a Can of Worms

Mark Latham, The Daily Telegraph

THERE is a widely held expectation in Australian politics that once the result of the same-sex marriage postal vote is announced on November 15, the matter will be resolved, once and for all.

According to opinion polls, a Yes vote looks likely, clearing the way for amendments to the Marriage Act.

But perhaps there’s one more twist in this long-running, vexed issue.

I hate to say it, but it might run for a good while yet.

Mark Latham.

By now, we have all heard the Australian Bureau of Statistics advertisements, encouraging people to vote on “whether Australian marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry”.

If the proposition is carried, the average voter would expect extra clauses to be added to the Marriage Act, widening the scope of wedlock to include homosexuality.

Marriage is currently defined as “between a man and a woman”.

One would logically expect the new legislation to read:

“Marriage is a union between:

a) A man and a woman; or

b) Two gay men; or

c) Two lesbian women.”

But this is not what our parliamentarians have been proposing.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten sought to define marriage as ‘a union between two people’ Picture: David Geraghty

When Bill Shorten introduced his private members’ Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill in 2015, its purpose was to “allow Australians to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

He sought to define marriage as “a union between two people” — meaning that all Australian adults were eligible: heterosexuals, homosexuals and people of any other gender or sexuality.

In the Liberal party-room, whenever private members’ bills have been proposed to amend the Marriage Act, they too have followed the Shorten formula.

That is, marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

This raises an immediate contradiction. The current postal vote is asking about “same-sex couples”.

But where is the question covering other possibilities — the various sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex statuses allowed for in both the Labor and Liberal private members’ bills?

This is no small matter.

In the Liberal Party whenever private members’ bills have been proposed to amend the Marriage Act, they too have followed the Shorten formula — marriage as a union between any two people of any gender or sexuality.

Left wing activists claim to have identified up to 250 gender and sexual categories. These include the well-known LGBTI designations — lesbian, gay, ­bisexual, transgender and intersex — plus a bewildering array of other ­terminology.

Apparently it is now possible to be genderqueer, demisexual, twospirit, asexual, pansexual, polyamorous, fluid, femme, gender-binary, gynephilic, SAAB, MSM/WSW, skoliosexual, agender, androsexual, bicurious, cisgender, demiromantic, down low, FtM/F2M and MtF/M2F.

I swear those last two featured in one of the Star Wars movies.

I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and would like to vote Yes in a plebiscite. But clearly Labor and Liberals have in mind a far broader definition of marriage.

It won’t be restricted to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It will include the multitude of categories listed above — most of which I’ve got no idea what they are talking about. I mean, what does the legalisation of polyamorous, skoliosexual and twospirit marriage involve?

Why is the postal vote question asking about same-sex (the LGB component) but not the other 247 types of marriage being promoted by the left?

A couple kiss at the conclusion of a mock wedding at the State Library of Victoria during a Rally For Marriage Equality. Picture: Getty Images

And why won’t the government release the amended Marriage Act it has in mind so we can understand what a YES vote will mean in practice?

A big part of the problem has been the left’s strategy of mission creep: using this debate to constantly broaden the definition of marriage.

Fifteen years ago, they advocated “gay marriage”. Then the mantra became “same-sex marriage” and finally, “marriage equality”.

Most of us thought this was a marketing ploy, an exercise in semantics.

Piers Akerman: The Thought Police work overtime on the same sex marriage debate

But it actually had a serious intent. Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories.

My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it.

I won’t be.

I’m also worried about the way in which marriage between any “two people” legitimises the notion of gender fluidity.

A wall painted with the rainbow flag and a message “Vote Yes” at Newtown. Picture: Getty Images

Through neo-Marxist programs like Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships, radicals have infiltrated our education system.

They are trying to convince young people of the possibilities of gender fluidity: that at any time, boys can be girls and girls can be boys.

Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxists tried to create political anxiety and rebellion through the economic system. Now they are trying to manipulate the identity and feelings of school students, to convince them nothing is fixed in this world, such as biological science.

They want young Australians to believe that “capitalist hegemony” is suppressing their true gender and sexuality — a new source of social unrest. We must resist this propaganda at any cost.

With a majority of parents saying they don’t want radical queer theory in the school curriculum via Safe Schools, why would we want it in the Marriage Act?

Marriage equality has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What does this mean for Parliament post-November 15?

If the public votes Yes, conservative MPs in the Coalition party room will be entitled to limit the scope of any new marriage statute to the mandate of the people.

This means writing into law a specific provision for marriage between same-sex couples.

But no more than that.

The postal vote process has made no mention of the other 247 categories.

If the public hasn’t approved marriage beyond heterosexual and homosexual couples, how can the Parliament proceed with a broad, “two people” definition?

Malcolm Turnbull’s political nightmare with gay marriage is a long way from ending.

{ 8 comments… add one }
  • Donna August 29, 2017, 11:09 am

    Since when do we get to have the exact same word for something which is actually an equivalent. I don’t change other definitions to suit myself so I don’t want this definition changed either- nor male/ female definitions, nor homosexual etc. find a new word- be specific. Legislate specifically

  • Jocelyn Ross August 29, 2017, 2:22 pm

    Thank you, that is very helpful. Add to that the situation in Canada, Ireland and other European countries where there is confusion and some places where male and female sexual identity is lost, What will happen to our children, who will have no certainty of paternity and maternity, which plays such an important part of who we are, and our heritage.

  • Deanne iedema August 29, 2017, 8:15 pm

    Very concerning article from Latham

  • Brian Eldridge August 30, 2017, 12:23 am

    What is going on with our politicians!
    Leave our children and marriage alone. God made us male and female and He instituted marriage between a man and a woman, FULL STOP. Today our children still need the love and care, support and guidance, and stability of their biological mother and father who are joined in marriage. The sense of belonging to each other in a stable family helps produce a stable society. If we meddle with this we do so at our own peril.
    I’m a 77 year old extremely happy husband, dad and granddad and a definite NO voter.

  • Tim Brock August 30, 2017, 3:00 am

    Thank you for highlighting the discrepancy between the public campaign for the “Yes” vote and the bills that are being drafted by major political parties who are contenders for government. How can two people whose sexuality is fluid, for example, possibly form a stable lasting relationship? This is social engineering in its most frightening form. It is aimed at the destruction of society’s most fundamental unit – the family.

  • John Wigg August 30, 2017, 11:22 am

    The above article understands well that the Rainbow Flag coalition is not merely about support for lesbian and gay agendas alone: LGBTIQ+ implies eventual access to marriage and its peculiar type of legitimacy for all possible permutations of gender and sexual orientation. It is in the nature of Dialectical Materialism that the dialectic process of revolutionary social change must be endlessly self-perpetuating in pursuit of a constantly evolving social ethic.

  • Carole August 31, 2017, 3:26 am

    Will they change the definition of ‘people’ down the track?

  • Cliff HOLLINGS August 31, 2017, 5:24 am

    For the protection of our children and grandchildren I must vote NO.
    The God I worship made the earth and all in it and He decided who should marry, see Genesis 2 .18-24 in God’s holy word.

Leave a Comment

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.

Next post:

Previous post: