The first thing to realise about New Zealand is that they were the first Failed State, in that they declined to join the Commonwealth of Australia, and Wellington Avenue in Burley Griffin's plan for Canberra had to be renamed Commonwealth Avenue.

As a result they missed out on living under one of the finest Constitutions in the world, which can only be amended by the people, not the Politicians. It is now the fourth or fifth oldest in existence, and has overseen the rise of Australia to one of the best countries in the world to live in.

The only thing we lack is the Swiss system of citizen initiated amendment, where the people can enact changes, such as the recent one prohibiting the erection of minarets, in the teeth of the opposition of the political elite, and continue in the old convict belief that the government is the enemy of the people.

The elite hate our Constitution, and so it is not really taught in schools. This is actually a benefit, as when a referendum comes up you can say:

"If you don't understand the referendum play safe and vote NO; if you do understand it you would know why you should vote NO."

One of the best recent examples of people power was when the republic referendum was crushed by the people, who exercised their usual contempt for the political elite.

Section 116 of the Constitution clearly states that the Commonwealth cannot establish any religion, impose any observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. That should be sufficient, except that the High Court has come up with such arcane rulings (for example, that our Constitution shall be in force on ships of a foreign country, declaring sections of the Constitution expended, finding implied clauses that were never written) that you can never be sure what twisted logic the elite will come up with.

The only referendum I would ever vote for would be one reducing politicians' enormous bloated salaries, but if you think we would ever get the chance to vote on that, you'd believe anything.

Religious practice is strictly for consenting adults.

Under a secular constitution freedom for AND FROM religious practice is protected by law.

Coercive punishment, by any person or cult, of lawful actions or utterances on the ground that the cult regards them as apostasy, blasphemy, heresy or impiety should be treated as a criminal offence.

Laws barring the conduct of normal business in deference to religious prohibitions should be disallowed as unconstitutional.

@Suseonline. Formal co-operation would have been better, 'direct' is misleading. Material co-operation through my taxes which are put in a pool and used to subsidise the murder of these little ones http://www.buzzfeed.com/personhoodusa/top-10-mind-blowing-images-of-human-life-in-the-wo-drqv is what I meant to distinguish. [Peter Hitchens who was once pro-abortion has a high level discussion on radio with scientist in England who presents a science show. It might help you see why conscientious objection is so precious to our humanity.]

Often a misfortune causes us to lose our faith. I don't get the feeling it was an intellectual conversion, 'invisible sky-god' is a bit defensive. If you trust me you could explain.

This might help understand the connection between the natural moral law and Christianity http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/natural-law-or-supernatural-law.html

As for the implications of abolishing the natural law, everywhere the state touches a citizens (client now) which is pretty much everywhere, will be affected - because this new teaching precedes it. The law is a teacher and shape personalities. Here is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=2

Current EEOC commissioner in the US "“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-times-the-cheerleader-effect-gays/

Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful. They will have the means to maintain a heritage, while removing by law duties to maintain a marriage culture for everyone else. Their schools, charities, churches will have to remain silent about marriage and accept the state's version or suffer the consequences. It is an extraordinary chilling of free speech, of sources of authority and independence apart from our rulers. It is terrifying.

Martin, you are a patient man :)

I guess I just thought that no one has ever actually seen any god, and the only proof we have is from human mouths, and many of those were from people who lived thousands of years ago.
As a nurse, I wonder that if there is a god, why does he/she 'cause' so many miscarriages and child cancers/deaths? I wouldn't like such a god, if they existed.

"Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful"
I don't understand this statement?

Are you suggesting that Gay people who are activists for Gay marriage are elite?
No other group in society is more elite, rich or powerful than some of the churches like the Catholic Church. Do they tilt the very foundations of society? Probably...

No, Gay marriage, in such a small percentage of the population, would have no effect on anyone else, except perhaps the pride of some religious people.

Maybe some people may think it is another step towards a fully secular society , and they find that confronting.

Martin Ibn Warraq writes: ” Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful. They will have the means to maintain a heritage, while removing by law duties to maintain a marriage culture for everyone else. Their schools, charities, churches will have to remain silent about marriage and accept the state's version or suffer the consequences. It is an extraordinary chilling of free speech, of sources of authority and independence apart from our rulers. It is terrifying.”

Such is the arrogance of those who seek to deprive the individual of freedom from religion's authoritarian rule.

Free speech isn’t only freedom to speak it, it’s also freedom to hear it. Children, the most vulnerable section of society, are deprived in Roman church schools and Moslem madrassas of hearing what others including historians say about the repressive cults the pre-Enlightenment thought police peddle. They would be punished for example for reading the literature of one of the most clear-headed and good-hearted historians of our age who writes under the pseudonym of Ibn Warraq (Google him). He can’t use his real name as he doesn’t have the benefit of freedom from religion and doesn’t want his head cut off. They would also be punished for studying the majority view that homosexuality is not a perversion and the widespread view that there is no moral law against marriage equality.

Martin Ibn Warraq finds terrifying the prospect of children hearing the voice of reasoned dissent as well as those of the cults that rule the schools, charities and churches (and presumably also mosques and madrassas) whose unfettered grooming he wants protected – to say nothing of growing up to live the lives the cults deem sinful or un-Islamic.

Dear Suse,

<<no one has ever actually seen any god>>

Thank God for that: a god that can be seen is not God.

<<As a nurse, I wonder that if there is a god, why does he/she 'cause' so many miscarriages and child cancers/deaths? I wouldn't like such a god, if they existed.>>

Neither would I. Fortunately that's not the case: God does not exist, hence nothing stands in the way for you to love Him.

<<No, Gay marriage, in such a small percentage of the population, would have no effect on anyone else, except perhaps the pride of some religious people.>>

Pride is an obstacle to religion. Anyone who aspires to be religious should therefore embrace such opportunity to be humbled.

<<Maybe some people may think it is another step towards a fully secular society, and they find that confronting.>>

Reflecting on that, I think it may be true, that it is not gay people who push for gay-marriage, but others who see it as just one step in their pursuit to use the state-mechanism to oppress religion, others who care not indeed for homosexuals, who use them as a tool and if/once successful in bringing down religion, once Julian's evil empire is established, they may well choose homosexuals as their next victim, using the state-law to oppress and bring down homosexuality just the same.

Yes, the thought of being thrown in prison for teaching one's children about life's true purpose, is confronting. It can indeed test and purify one's faith.

Down in history, religious people were thrown to the lions for bowing down to God alone rather to the emperor, or for not recognising the emperor as god. Many died as martyrs, many were forced to hard-labour in gulags for teaching their children about God and what life is really about, yet religion survived and will survive longer than this earth, because Hedonism is short-lived and but to pursue God there is no other reason for us to come to this world.

I certainly would prefer to be miscarried or die of cancer over living in Julian's empire.