Gay Marriage Australia – They Don’t Talk Freedom Because They Don’t Respect It

Posted on Wed 09/27/2017 by


By Andrew Bolt ~

Paul Kelly is right:  

Our flawed approach to changes in marriage law is revealed in the latest Newspoll — a 57 per cent majority wants same-sex marriage and an even bigger 62 per cent majority wants religious beliefs protected — yet this obvious nexus is most unlikely to be achieved.

The feature of the campaign so far is the absolute refusal of the Yes camp to concede any legitimacy to warnings of the No camp about the risks to religious freedom and belief. The Yes camp declares such warnings are a red herring, an unjustified scare, an egregious tactic without substance, and tells people not to worry.

At the same time, however, the Yes camp has nothing to say about the actual argument — it simply refuses to engage in the issue. Has there ever been a more arrogant campaign surrounding a national vote?

The refusal to discuss those freedoms suggest the campaigners plan to remove them.

Nick Minchin:

Liberal party heavyweight Nick Minchin has backed John Howard in calling for the details of a same-sex marriage bill to be made public to better inform voters before the end of the postal survey.

Mr Minchin, a former government senate leader and special minister of state, yesterday [said:] “I fully support remarks made by John Howard on this subject… Religious freedoms are potentially at risk and the means by which they will be protected should be detailed.”

Having returned earlier this year from the US where he served as the Australian consul-general in New York, Mr Minchin … said marriage was one of the most “fundamental and important” institutions in society that had “forever been, by definition, a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.

In a letter to The Australian, Mr Minchin writes: “[Former Liberal minister Warwick] Smith, speaking as a Liberal, now says all that should be abandoned so as to ‘allow all Australians to marry the person they love.’ As a Liberal myself, I find this an extraordinary proposition.

‘‘The logic of Mr Smith’s argument is that there can be no restrictions on the legal definition of marriage except the self-proclaimed presence of ‘love’.

“With great respect to Mr Smith, this demonstrates how fatuous, shallow and unconvincing is much of the case for such a radical change to such an important institution.

“It completely ignores the vast potential adverse consequences of this campaign to redefine marriage.”

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog .