Why won’t Tony Abbott allow a Coalition conscience vote on gay marriage?
What has Abbott got to fear with such a vote, defeat that’s all?
The cross-party House of Representatives' social policy and legal affairs committee’s inquiry into same sex unions received about 276,000 responses to its online survey, with nearly two-thirds in support of gay marriage. There is strong support for gay marriage from committee chairman Graham Perrett, he said it was "undefendable and unjust" not to support gay marriage, adding that "The love between same-sex couples is no different,” to any other.
The Greens member Adam Bandt told Parliament that the public was "ready for change" and that same-sex marriage should be legalised because it was "right".
Naturally, the usual suspects have came out once again to oppose gay marriage, the so called Christian churches. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, wrote a letter to parishioners. It quotes Bible extracts from Genesis on the nature of marriage and notes that ''not all can be or should be married''.
The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, and his auxiliary bishops, Julian Porteous, Terence Brady and Peter Comensoli, co-wrote a similar letter to catholic parishioners. Their letter entitled ''One Man and One Woman in a Covenant of Love and Life'', states that ''legislating for same-sex marriage will change the meaning of marriage for everyone and radically reshape the cultural and social structures of our country''.
It is likely that some time in the near future parliament will vote on a proposal to change the legal definition of marriage. Let’s hope they do, as Adam Bandt said, the “right” thing by their fellow Australians.
Both my partner and I support gay marriage.

Dear Paul1405,

A conscience vote should be allowed in Parliament
on same-sex marriage in a secular country like
Australia - which has no official or state
religion and where religious laws have no legal
status. To have a political party dictate to its
members and not allow them to have a conscience vote
because of religious reasons goes against Australian
values one of which includes freedom of religion and
secular government.

Its very disturbing to think that these people may
form our next government.

There should a conscience vote on all matters except for those specifically mentioned in the platform the party has campaigned on to get elected. Until there is representing their constituents, consulting their conscience or considering the good of Australia and the world will take second place to the decision of the party room.

Since gay marriage is completely a civil matter and no churches will be required to perform them it merely seems a matter where the churches are trying to use government to enforce their moral vision.

Government should not be used to promote religion according S. 116 of the Australian Constitution.

Abbott should be an abbot.

Sexual union between two persons of the same gender cannot be defined in the historican and biological sense as marriage FULL STOP.

Dear Josephus,

You are clearly wrong. Since marriage has been defined to include sexual union of two people of the same sex in some places it obviously can be and has been defined that way. You obviously don't like that definition, but it can be and has been defined that way.

Why won’t Tony Abbott allow a Coalition conscience vote on gay marriage?

The answer is simple, and Abbott has said so plainly. Both Labor and the coalition went to the last election pledging not to change the marriage act.

Abbott intends to keep his promises, a problem that Labor apparently does not suffer from.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again with the double-standard old chap.

All you have to do is Google the "broken promises
of Tony Abbott" to find Mr Abbott's record on this issue.
But then of course there's always the excuse of "changing
circumstances" that you guys are so willing to put forward
when it comes to your side of politics - and to continue
to blame the other side for doing the same. Nothing new
there.

The following link from Laurie Oakes is worth reading:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/oakes-tony-abbott-enters-promise-land/story-e6freakc-1226167165749

lexi,

From the link you provided:

"Unfortunately for Ms Gillard, though, her disgraceful post-election about-face on carbon tax still is very fresh in voters' minds. - She and her ministers seemed to be rubbing their noses in it with their hugs, kisses and high-fives after the legislation was passed by the Lower House, guaranteeing it will become law."

And

"Once again Ms Gillard brought trouble on herself through astonishingly poor political judgment."

Perhaps you can show me a comparable promise that Abbott made, and broke entirely of his own accord (such as Juliar's no carbon tax promise)

Dear SM,

Again you cite only the selective bits (of
what Laurie Oakes wrote). And as for giving you
examples of Mr Abbott's broken promises - Laurie
has already done that but if you need more Sir,
you can as I told you in my previous post -
Google, "Tony Abbott's broken promises."
There's plenty of websites to choose from.
They're there on record.

david f,
Please give us the meaning of the word "marriage" and its definition.

Lexi,

I deliberately cherry picked the link just as you always do.

The point I raised was that this gay marriage back flip by Juliar is yet another broken promise. Abbott is perfectly justified in sticking to the promise he made to the electorate.

You try to justify this with the only example of a broken promise by Abbott to the electorate is from 2004 when he was overruled. (I could not find any others.) I take this to mean that you find Gillard's constant breaking of promises acceptable?

Dear Josephus,

Marriage is a civil, religious or social contractual arrangement which varies according to the social circumstances of the society in which it occurs.

Anthropologists recognise eight different forms of marriage. In one form the father's chief function is to impregnate the mother, but the actual head of the family and authority figure for the children is the mother's brother. In the Jewish Bible or Old Testament there is polygyny where a man has more than one wife. (eg Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel.) In earlier Tibet polyandry or one woman having more than one husband was recognised. In some Muslim countries a man may have up to four wives. Among some American Indian tribes there are berdaches. A berdache is a man who assumes a woman's role and marries another man.

The Catholic Church makes Jesus into a polygynist as all nuns are regarded as brides of Christ. However, that is an example of marriage with an imaginary husband and without sexual union.

The forms of civil marriage are determined by civil law. If civil law defines marriage to include people of the same sex then that is marriage.

The form of marriage varies from time to time, place to place and venue to venue.

Therefore marriage is defined as a contractual union of two or more people.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm surprised you admitted to finding any broken
promises of Tony Abbott's. But keep trying - there
are more listed although the Medicare Safety Net is
an excellent example and you did specify for an
example for which Mr Abbott was responsible - you did not
specific any time frame Sir, and Mr Abbott as Health
Minister declared quite firmly that it was
"an absolutely rock solid, ironclad commitment."

Of course when he reneged on it, his predictable
explanation was, "When I made that statement on the
election campaign I had not the slightest inkling that
there would ever be any intention to change this,
but obviously when circumstances change, governments
do change their opinions."

Great similarity here with the PM's response concerning
the carbon tax - when she said: "I meant those words when
I said them in the election campaign."

And then like Mr Abbott, she also explained:

"I found changed circumstances. I made a choice and
I'm happy to stand by it."

But, according to Mr Abbott he didn't lie or break an
election promise - circumstances changed for him.
Whereas the PM broke an election promise - changing
circumstances don't apply to her.

Right?

Give us a break old chap - and stop with all this
nonsense.

What I would like to see is the media picking
up both Labor and the Coalition's policy
platforms (oh wait the Coalition doesn't have
any - yet) and let voters decide which
offers Australia the brightest future.

The policy debate needs to move to the front pages
and if, as Abbott's supporters argue, the Coalition
does have robust policies (which we've yet to see)
to answer Labor's - that's what the people should
ultimately decide for themselves. Arguing that the
Coalition doesn't want Labor stealing their policies -
is simply a cop-out. And an excuse for in-action -
not good enough and certainly not a reason for having
anyone vote for them.

cont'd ...

Shadow Minister you know darn well that the only
reason that Mr Abbott will not allow a conscience
vote on same-sex marriage to his MPs has nothing
to do with keeping any sort of promise. The man
would change his mind at the drop of a hat if it
meant that by allowing the vote - he could become
PM. I find it amusing that the Liberal Party
continually proclaims that it allows and tolerates
a diverse range of opinions within the ranks.
Yet when they have a chance to prove it - they
renege on it. How can anyone believe anything they
say. Do whatever it takes to win - seems to be their
ethos. Democracy be damned.

Bugger a conscience vote by politicians who don't give a toss what the public think. A matter like this should go to a referendum, just as the carbon tax should have. I am sick of people thinking that any government acts in the best interests of the people. Both sides and the greens and independants are self-serving, greedy and corrupt. We get a vote once every few years and it is simply not enough.

Please everyone, if I wanted to listen to endless "he did / she did" debates, where nothing is resolved, I'd watch Question Time.
Disappointing. Really.

Lexi,

"The man would change his mind at the drop of a hat if it meant that by allowing the vote - he could become PM." (Like Gillard).

Nope, he does not suffer from labor values

Juliar had the sole responsibility for her lie, whereas Abbott did not. The changing circumstances were entirely political and the decision was made entirely to grasp power at the expense of the electorate.

P.S. please show me where Abbott did not keep other election promises. I don't believe you.

Dear SM,

So you think that the PM has the sole responsibility
for her "lie?" Really? And having to deal with
a minority government and make compromises and
negotiations has no bearing on the case. Oh dear.

Of course at the same time you think that Mr Abbott -
is not in charge of any decisions made.
In his case "circumstances changed,"
whereas the PM's circumstances remained the
same? I see.

And you don't believe that Mr Abbott's telling the
truth and keeping promises is a bit shonky and you
want me to give you another example apart from
the Medicare Safety Net - because you're unable
to find any further examples of broken promises.
OK. How about this link from Andrew Bolt:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/don't-slug-business-for-maternity-leave-blueprint/story-e6frfhgf-1225838882213

Here's another question for you - Mr Abbott keeps telling
us that he will repel the Gillard government's carbon
pricing legislation (a pledge in blood) if he becomes PM.
However as Laurie Oakes points out Mr Abbott "wopuld roll
back something as big and complex as the carbon price
scheme - it is an easy promise to make but hugely
difficult to keep without a great upheaval."

What will be the result do you think if Mr Abbott can't
keep this promise. If he's elected and he can't deliver -
will he put his money where his mouth is - and will he
call another election?

I thought you couldn't come up with another example.

Gillard had the choice of keeping her promise or negotiating a different deal. She chose to lie.

Abbott made a promise, Someone else made the decision for him, he had no choice.

Juliar also lied about the East Timor solution amongst many other lies.

Rolling back the carbon tax lie might take a year, and will require scrapping the greens costly pet projects.

Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 6:59:14 PM

" ... A conscience vote should be allowed in Parliament
on same-sex marriage in a secular country like
Australia - which has no official or state
religion and where religious laws have no legal
status. .. Its very disturbing to think that these people may
form our next government. ... "

Indeed however, I am not clear as to whether or not what you have said is entirely true in regards to Oz being a secular state.

Do the politicians not say a Christian prayer in parliament?

Are there not acts of laws governing some religions but not others?

Did they not erect a pathetic little wooden cross in the Oz Embassy in Bali post the bomb regardless of the variety of different folk who were effected?

..

As for *shadow minister* I do think you are very patient and thoughtful *Lexi* but I suspect that he will like his cronies just go about banging his "symbol of discord" like a crazed, robotic chimp, regardless.

In the case of *Juliar Geelar* and the carbon tax, had they gained a majority, mayhaps they would have kept their "promise," but as she clearly did not, she had little choice but to nego with the *Greens* under the "new paradigm."

Which is of course why in my view, we ought here far less in the media from the opposition, and far more from the people involved in the process of enacting law, that is to say the *Greens* and the *Independents,* because they indeed currently have the power to impact upon the populace.

Of course, this is one of the great travesties of allowing so few to control so much of the media, as it is obviously self serving for the politicians who in turn have less people in the media to deal with and greater ease in the process of soliciting financial contributions and favorable coverage to keep themselves in power.

As for the "Gay Marriage" issue, to me it would have all been over and done with a long time ago were it not for the fact that there are simply so many stultified, bigoted, fruit cakes like *Josephus & Runner* who simply do not care for freedom of religion one iota, at least to the extent that the believes of others contradict their own, as if they were to stand up and say that one of the major parties were against *Jesus* then there would very likely be serious political ramifications at the next election for the "offenders."

There has been for many decades in this country other religions who "marry" gay people as one of their sacraments, not to mention other historical aspects as eloquently detailed by *David F*

(P.S. I must get over to the High court and have a look at the judgment)

No, sooner these loonies would vote for Abbott so that he may lock up more children for extended periods in circumstances known to lead to adverse medical outcomes, such is their obsession with their own delusional beliefs.

Dear DreamOn,

Of course one could question the influence of
religion as far as our pollies go. Look at Mr Abbott
as an example. He's a Catholic who can lie through
his teeth - knowing as long as he repents -
all is forgiven. Of course our PM
would be considered at a
disadvantage, by some, for being an atheist.
And a woman, and not married, and the list goes on.
Depends on your point of view.

However, officially
the stance is that Australia does have a secular
government and no official or state religion and
the government is supposed to treat all citizens
equally regardless of religion and religious laws
have no legal status in Australia.

cont'd ...

I meant to add that at least the PM
has the decency to allow her MPs a
conscience vote on this issue not
like Mr Abbott who refuses his MPs
that right. Shadow Minister would have
us believe that Mr Abbott is simply keeping
his election promise. Well he can go ahead
and keep it - but don't force your MPs
to keep a promise they didn't make.
This is supposed to be a democracy after all.
Not a dictatorship. Still Mr Abbott's mentor
Mr Howard wasn't known for being very democratic
either. He taught Mr Abbott well it seems.

'o many stultified, bigoted, fruit cakes like *Josephus & Runner* who simply do not care for freedom of religion one iota, '

and the likes of Dreamon and others who could not care less about what is best for children and society as long as their own little perverted view of life is accepted.

Lexi,

Given the labor party policy of expelling those that vote against the party, they are hardly the ones to lecture on "democracy". Gillard was dragged kicking and screaming to this juncture, and only gave in to a conscience vote because it had no chance.

The electoral cycle is only 3 years, with just over a year to the next election. If Juliar said she would take it to the next election as part of the labor platform, she would not have to break another promise.

david f,
In every case you quoted the marriage is between persons of opposite gender, a man and a woman.

The Coalition members can't have a conscience vote on anything, because firstly one must have a conscience. Conservatives are people without a conscience, just look at their track record.
Who did Abbott make his promise on gay marriage to before the last election? George Pell or was it god. Shadow Minister, are you a Anglican Shadow Minister.
I wonder, how many pedophile catholic priests last Sunday morning were lecturing their congregations from the pulpit on the immorality of gay marriage, Add to that lot, the ones who simply fornicate with their 'housekeepers'. What a hypocritical bunch!

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: "In every case you quoted the marriage is between persons of opposite gender, a man and a woman."

Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. I quote from it:

"Among some American Indian tribes there are berdaches. A berdache is a man who assumes a woman's role and marries another man."

DreamOn wrote: "stultified, bigoted, fruit cakes like *Josephus & Runner*"

I find the above language objectionable. Josephus and runner have different opinions from me. However, that does not make them less human or less entitled to be addressed with courtesy.

Paul your attempt to be inflammatory is pathetic. The labor party is hardly one to compare on morals having lied continuously to the electorate.

Personally I am an atheist and if you check my earlier posts I have always been in favour of gay marriage, and would prefer that the coalition and labor had not committed themselves against this in their election platform. I would support them changing their position for the election next year.

However, given the changes to the laws regarding de facto relationships under Howard, the rights afforded to "married" couples differ little from de facto couples, which reduces the impact on gay relationships to being "married" in name. This reduces the urgency of the issue from a human right to a recognition of status.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you don't stop referring to the Prime Minister
in derogatory fashion. I shall stop responding to you.
Her name is Julia Gillard. Have the decency to address
her correctly.

But Lexi, if you deny SM his schoolboy fun then he'll cease to derive his meaning in life. "Juliar" is his oh-so-clever epithet for the PM. Can't you see the kudos he consistently gleans from this (diabolically clever) referencing technique?

Juliar is an epithet that Gillard has worked hard to earn, and given the lack of respect and vitriol with which you refer to Abbott, I am disinclined to accede to your request. Whether you respond or not is entirely your decision.

Posted by david f

" ... I find the above language objectionable. Josephus and runner have different opinions from me. However, that does not make them less human or less entitled to be addressed with courtesy. ... "

I disagree *David F* as regardless of their opinions, the result of their activities is to relegate gay people to less, other and verily second class citizens.

Worse still, the perhaps immeasurable damage that they do to the vulnerable which leads to misery, despair and even suicide.

Now, you may be so weak, in my view, as to believe that these sorts of individuals are worthy to be spoken to courteously, but I do not. Contempt, is the least that they deserve.

..

*Lexi* secular governments do not say their pitiful little prayers before parliament or erect pathetic unrepresentative relgious symbols of bigotry and homphobia.

..

As for Juliar and Tony, clearly to me they are child abusers, as are their forebears, and whilst the likes of *David F* want to go about speaking nicely to everyone, their fiendish deeds go unchecked. Even now they still have Indonesian minors and others in detention whilst their wig parasites sit about on obscene incomes fiddling with their pencils.

..

As for *Runner,* it appears plain that he considers that gay people having children constitutes a form of child abuse also, and I put it that he or she is simply not worth listening to. Attitudes like theirs led to the holocaust against gays, gypsies, the mentally ill and others, and also to the ongoing abuse of the Original Australians in the aftermath of world war 2.

Not to mention the theft of babies from unwed mothers, the nuking of vets and original australians by the genocidal pom and their allies, the pedophilia of the church of the rock spider and their cover ups and the list goes on.

And all the while, some of you deluded folk go about wanting to insist that what is important is that we speak nicely to one another, in the absence of those responsible being held to account.

Dear DreamOn,

I agree that the treatment of gay people as less than human has led to misery, despair and even suicide.

However, I don’t see how calling Josephus and runner names helps gay people in the least. You characterised me as weak in believing that people whose opinions I disapprove us are worthy to be spoken to courteously. I see no point in calling runner and Josephus names. What do you achieve by that?

Josephus and runner seem to regard gay people with great prejudice. Should I regard Josephus and runner with the same distaste that they seem to regard gay people? Should I put myself on their level?

It seems they are adherents of a primitive judgmental religion which has done great harm in justifying prejudice and in murdering people who disagree with them. However, even in that religion one can find bits of wisdom. One bit of wisdom is that one should hate the sin but love the sinner.

Although I find it difficult to love Josephus and runner I can hate the sin called Christianity but be courteous to Josephus and runner.

Dear Poirot,

See you on another thread my dear.

The reason dear *David F* is so that they and their like may know in no uncertain terms that their behavior is completely unacceptable.

..

I have no problem with them having a particular faith. If they wish to be an adherent of a religion that does not condone gay relationships then that's fine.

But when they seek to demonise others, even by demonising what they consider to be a sin ( "to miss the point" from the Greek may be a better translation,) leading to practices of forced conversion of minors, forced psychiatry, ostrasisation, so called "poofter bashing," being registered like dogs (in the words of a High Court judge,) etc and clearly in my mind they need to be stopped, with force if need be.

..

Initially, I was not discourteous to these people, and gave them the benefit of the doubt, but when they persist ..

It is though honest of me, as *Runner & Josephus* are very unlikely to have any illusions about my thoughts about them.

..

One other thing. They represent a "theocratic" force with wave after wave of them turning up here to trot out their organisations hateful bigotry. And whilst I have not seen them state it clearly, it seems plain that they are quite comfortable with bending and perverting the democratic process such that it conforms with their theocratic ideals.

..

Much as dear *Boazy* made attempts to "convert" you, so would these people impose their concepts upon you whether you like it or not.

The reason I was not overly offended by *Boazy* though was because he was quite up front about this, however, these others are significantly more insidious.

..

I suspect that during the time of the theft of children and the destruction of Original Australian families, that those more concerned with their own skins than that of others also practiced "speaking politely" to and about some of the foulest and most loathsome of historical figures.

..

Hitler and the catholic church is another classic example.

david f,
You are a worthy of thanks. Dream on condemns himself with his own emotive bigotry. I don't need to defend myself as those who know me know my character.

I will always defend a biological principle i.e. the womb was designed for childbearing and is only fertilized by impregnating by male sperm. The marriage contract was introduced to defend the security of the family. There is no offspring from same sex relationship. I have several friends who are infant teachers who have children in their classes who have no father or two mothers and they struggle to have normal relationships with men.

Dear Josephus,

You have made a common philosophical error. You have confused an is with an ought. 'Is' refers to what things are. 'Ought' refers to what one thinks they should be. Marriage is not a biological principle. It is a human institution set up by humans in a particular time at a particular place in a particular society. Several states in the United States, several countries and several Jewish and Christian sects have defined marriage as a commitment between two people regardless of sex. If the Australian government chooses to define it that way that is what civil marriage will be in Australia regardless of what you think it ought to be.

Dear DreamOn,

About 20 years ago I made a homophobic joke. I saw the look of shock and hurt in my daughter's eyes. I have never made another similar joke. I now fully support equal rights including equal marriage rights for homosexuals. If she had called me names, ridiculed me or been angry I don't know what my reaction would have been.

We are living in a society where PC sections do not recognise gender as relative. It is not possible for one political party to have a platform of genderless sexuality. The only possible way to have things settled democratically is a referendum. That way the facts are shared from both sides and the public decide.

The question could be, "Should gender define marriage?" i.e. as is a man and a woman.

Dear Josephus,

Ideally, referenda decide questions where there is a difference of opinion, and the decision is made to involve the general public. I assume we agree that murder is simply wrong. Even if there was a majority in agreement with removing penalties for murder it would be wrong to do so if murder is wrong.

Of course it is never so clear cut as that. People have different opinions as to what is right and wrong. I feel that it is morally right that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. Others feel that it is morally wrong that homosexuals should be able to marry each other.

We wind up with the position that morality is decided by opinion, and opinion changes. I know that my opinion has changed in regard to same-sex marriage.

The reality is that the question will be decided without a referendum as that as is the way most changes in the law are made in our society.

Homosexual couples are not asking churches to marry them in the 'eyes of the church' they are simply asking for the same consideration that other Australians receive under the law, the legal recognition of their marriage. Simply apply the same rules to all regardless of gender. If a homosexual couple have a child to raise and are a pair of unfit parents like some heterosexual couples are then apply the same rules take the child into care. Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples will note take up the option of 'marriage'.
How would it be if heterosexuals with a physical deformity were denied the right to marry because the majority found them repugnant. I believe much of the marriage discrimination against homosexuals is based on the repugnance of homosexuality by many heterosexual people, still believing sex between two people of the same gender to be unnatural.

Paul,

This time I agree with you.

SM No one is totally conservative (you) or totally progressive(me) most of us have different opinions on issues, that's fine by me. I know a few Liberal Party supporters who on social issues are far more progressive thinking than some conservative Labor people I know.

Amen! Now let's all say the dead lord's prayer and then go out and find some children to lock up.

..

Abbott should just come out with a mentally shattered child upended from his left hand and say:

" ... See, this is what we will do to if you if come here by boat. ... "

..

*Paul* I think you would do well to remember that here are churches that include amongst their sacraments marriage for gay people. Of course, the pre-requisite for their marriage ceremonies is love, not opposite genitalia.

..

On the other hand, you have *Josphus & Runner* who I suspect come from those organisations who are heavily implicated in the abuse of children, the theft of babies, the destruction of Original Australian families, pedophilia and worst of all, the protection and cover up for those who committed the crimes.

..

Now, seriously, there's really no debate worth having with the likes of these is there, surely?

..

To be honest, I would reserve a place hanging from the old tree out the front of the Supreme court for the scum in the political churches and whilst some of you may find that a bit extreme, I say better that than allow bent priests to go about covering up for their mates and transferring pedophiles from one parish to another to commit their a la Exorcist crimes against minors.

I would include in that crimes against the young and vulnerable who are blossoming into gay sexuality.

..

As the considerable array of crimes by say the catholic church is clearly institutional with the perversion going all the way to the top - and ex Hitler youth ratsinger is now an international criminal fugitive - I would blacklist them as an organisation, seize their assets, lock up their guilty with *Lurch the Hairy* and divvy up their possessions amongst their victims and the smaller and diverse group of quality other charitable and religious organisations in an as equitable way as we can come up with.

DreamOn said:
"As the considerable array of crimes by say the catholic church is clearly institutional with the perversion going all the way to the top - and ex Hitler youth ratsinger is now an international criminal fugitive - I would blacklist them as an organisation, seize their assets, lock up their guilty with *Lurch the Hairy* and divvy up their possessions amongst their victims and the smaller and diverse group of quality other charitable and religious organisations in an as equitable way as we can come up with."

DreamOn, If you check any of my posts re: catholic church on this forum you will find I have no love for this organisation. I agree with your above post. Ratsinger ex Hitler Your, they know how to pick em'

DreamOn

I forgot to say Ratzinger was also the head of the Inquisition in Rome in 1981. Hitler Youth, German solider guarding work slaves at BMW factory, Nazi prisoner of war 1945, Inquisition no wonder the bloke got the job!

How did a thread on same sex marriage suddenly
turn into an attack on the Catholic Church and
the Pope?

No one can deny that the sexual abuse of children
is horrendous and intolerable and that the failure
of the Church to deal with it effectively has done
immeasurable damage to the victims. The cover-ups,
the protection of abusive clergy, and the refusal
to admit egregious mistakes are unjustifiable and
we have not yet even begun to calculate the damage
these crimes have done to people's trust and to
the reputation of the Church.

However I don't
understand what all this has to do with same-sex marriage?

Homosexuality in any society in history has never been considered a lifelong marriage agreement. They have been casual encounters and with diverse partners, similar with prostitutes. There is no public declaration when a man seeks a prostitute, or engages a homosexual.

All the Christian ceremonies and symbols of signing a contract have depicted a marriage of a man to a woman (wombman. The exchange of rings depicting the agreement to engage in sexual intercourse, the throwing of seeds or rice or flowers to symbolise fertility. The wearing of white to indicate virgin purity. The giving of the bride by the father to indicate the father agrees to his daughter as a bride in the relationship with the husband.

The marriage contract (State registered agreement) is not the marriage, it is merely the written agreement of the reality of marriage, the rights and responsibility for life to each other is the reality of the marriage.

The definition of marriage is the lifelong sexual union of mam and his wife, which brings together all chromosomes of a human species - which in 5,000 year old tradition is known as the "two shall be one flesh"

The definition of marriage is the lifelong sexual union of man and his wife, which brings together all chromosomes of a human species - which in 5,000 year old tradition is known as the "two shall be one flesh"

The family is the most basic and ancient of all
institutions, and it remains the fundamental
social unit in every society. Yet there are many
people today who predict the end of the family
system as we know it. The family, it is contended,
is breaking down, the victim of moral decay,
sexual permissiveness, changing gender roles, or
social forces.

Such predictions are heard in all industrialised societies.
We now have both men and women begin sexual activity
before marriage. One in every five births is to an
unmarried mother, usually a teenager. One in every four
pregnancies ends in abortion. The number of unmarried couples
living together has tripled in less than two decades.
People are staying single longer than ever, and more than
one adult in five now lives alone.

About half of all marriages are expected to end in divorce.
New alternatives to traditional marriage, such as the
single-parent household are becoming steadily more common.
And to complicate matters further, children can now be
conceived through artificial means, sometimes in a
laboratory dish.

What this means is that today we have an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns. That family and
marriage, like any other institution, has changed
through time in our society, as in all others.

Much of the current concern about the fate of modern
marriage stems from the assumption that there is only
one "right" marriage form. So naturally any change to
the institution of marriage is branded as heralding the
doom of the whole institution. Mixed inter-religious
and racial marrianges were
seen in the same light a few decades ago - yet today
they are perfectly acceptable. In ancient times one
wasn't allowed to marry outside their own village or
outside one's own country. Times do change. The same
will apply with same sex marriages - sometime in the future
we shall all wonder what all this fuss was all about.

Lexi,
No we won't stop wondering what all the fuss was about! We are concerned because of all the welfare and counselling that is in place now for breakdowns in normal family life. Society cannot just accept fractured family life as it shows injustice, hurt and anger. Just attend your local school and see the dysfunction of family life influences on children. There is no greater security for a child than a united loving mother and father.

Do not give us the nonsence that everythig is normal and acceptable, when it is clearly fractured. Talk to your local primary school teachers.

Dear Josephus,

You ignore the evidence. There have been same sex marriages. There have been marriage of one man having several wives and one woman having several husbands. There is absolutely no evidence that children in those marriages are any worse off than children from a one man - one woman marriage. If you accept the Bible as authoritative (I don't, but I think you do.) Jacob, Solomon and other notables are products of polygamy.

New Testament fairy tales are not a reliable guide for human behaviour.

Dear Josephus,

Problems in relationships are not only confined
to a certain group of people - they occur to all human beings.
However what we are discussing here is allowing same-sex
couples to marry. A child will do well if he/she is loved
and grows up in a loving home. That love and home is not just
restricted to only certain people and homes.

I realise that some people view their own patterns of
marriage, family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God-given as well. Therefore if
one assumes that there is only one "right" marriage and
family form, then naturally as I stated earlier any change
will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution.

Once again I will say that it is important to recognise,
that there is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at
least in their own context, perfectly viable; and above all,
that the family, and marriage, like any other social
institution, must inevitably change through time, in our
own society as in all others.

Josephus.

Gay couples are not banging on church doors demanding that Fr.Fryemup marry them before his precious alter. Remember no one is legally married unless the state says so, nothing to do with the church, the only legal proof of a marriage in Australia is the state awarded marriage certificate. All that same sex couples are asking for is the same rights as heterosexual couples, the awarding of a state marriage certificate. I assure you, if this is done the sky will not fall in as the religious would have us believe.
The moralistic views of christians or any other religious groupings should not be allowed to influence the law of the land.

Paul1405,
So I take it you would allow anyone to marry including siblings.

david f,
I see natural science as my authority for the only purpose of marriage and registration by the State for responsibility and for family involved. As children automatically become citizens of the State.
You guys are inconsistent in your argument as you claim some Christian and Jewish churches accept gay marriage.

"Several states in the United States, several countries and several Jewish and Christian sects have defined marriage as a commitment between two people regardless of sex. Posted by david f, Saturday, 23 June 2012 10:05:03 AM"

Yet Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 23 June 2012 5:26:21 PM

"Homosexual couples are not asking churches to marry them in the 'eyes of the church' they are simply asking for the same consideration that other Australians receive under the law, the legal recognition of their marriage. Simply apply the same rules to all regardless of gender."

Does natural science discrimonate against men not having a womb or women not having a penis. The Church is the only honest opinion when it comes to natural science.

The sole role of the Gay atheistic lobby is to enforce by law their opinion on natural science and the Muslim, Jewish and Christian Church. To outlaw the common and historical view of marriage as illegal.

No, Josephus I am not in favor of your priests being allowed to marry alter boys. I know there are certain members of the clergy who support pedophilia as demonstrated by the numbers who have been exposed already, and continue to be exposed. I know it would save the catholic church in particular millions of dollars in compensation it has tried to avoid paying to victims if pedophilia was legalised. I am sure you most likely can quote a passage from your bible which says it all okay, but I still oppose priests marrying alter boys.
I don't believe there is a ground swell of opinion supporting or demanding siblings marry each other. You have posted what is called a 'red herring' my friend. Do you think I'm as dopy as some, damned if you say yes, damned if you say no.
"A red herring is a post which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue."

Josephus, Both David any I are correct. There is no conflict, David was referring rightly to "Several states in the United States, several countries and several Jewish and Christian sects." Where as I was referring to the situation within Australia "Homosexual couples are not asking churches to marry them in the 'eyes of the church'." I do not believe the mainstream churches ie. Catholic, Anglican etc support gay marriage. It would be a simple matter for gay religious people to set up their own church if they so desired, or does the existing groups have a monopoly on churches.

The sole role of the Gay atheistic lobby is to enforce by law their perverse opinion. This law would be enforced to accept homosexuals as being married on natural science and Muslim, Jewish and Christian Churches. It would outlaw the common and historical view of marriage as illegal. This would allow them to sue those that deny them marriage rights.

You say It (legalise gay marriage) would outlaw the common and historical view of marriage as illegal (same sex marriage). This would allow them to sue those that deny them marriage rights.

Josephus In Australia churches marry no one. Only the state marries people. Some old priest can mutter all the words he likes, but until a marriage certificate is issued no one is legally married. Are gays banging on your church door demanding to be 'married' by your functionary inside?
For me its purely a secular matter nothing to do with religion. A section of the community who are presently being discriminated against are seeking equality with the rest of society under the law.

One of the values that is important in modern
Australia is - freedom of religion and secular
government. All Australians are free to follow
any religion they choose, so long as its practice
does not break any Australian law. Australians are
also free not to follow a religion. Australia has
secular government and no official or state relgion.

Our government is obligated to treat all of its
citizens as equals (regardless of their religion
or lack of it) and religious laws have no legal
status in Australia.

The divorce laws for example are those laws eneacted
by the parliament. The process of divorce and related
matters, such as marriage, custody of children and
the settlement of property arrangements can only be
done in accordance with the laws passed by the
Australian parliament. All Australian are entitled
to the protection and equal treatment under these
laws. At present same-sex couples do not receive
these entitlements when it comes to the right to
marry. They are simply requesting that this matter
is corrected. They are forced to vote, to pay taxes,
to obey the laws - but they are not allowed to marry.
Making them second-class citizens. That is unjust
and should be corrected in a secular country such as
ours. A conscience vote in Parliament should be allowed.

Dear Lexi,

I disagree. Australia has neither freedom of religion or secular government. For one thing the Constitution of Australia does not apply to state law. Australia states are free to have a state religion if their legislature should decide on one.

The original Queensland Education Act specified that Queensland should have secular education. Until 1910 it did with schools not having religious instruction, bible reading or any sort of religious observance. A campaign to remove the word, secular, from the Education Act was successful in 1910, and it has not been restored.

For another thing the Australian Constitution refers to religion in much the same manner as the US Constitution does. However, in the US chaplains in the public schools as well as government subsidies to religious schools would be illegal. The two constitutions are interpreted differently.

Bishop Tom Frame wrote a book called "Church and State." It is a history of church state relations. He contends that Australia does not have separation of church and state. I wish it did, but he is correct. Without that separation we do not have a secular state.

In Queensland the education department does not see that there is adequate opportunity for parents to keep their children from religious instruction. The law mandates that, but some principals ignore the law. They are not checked on. In effect there is missionising without parental consent so there is not freedom of religion. Those children who succeed in being exempt from religious instruction may be treated as pariahs.

Marion Maddox has written on the Howard government's connection with Christian religion. Rudd and Gillard have maintained the connection.

I belong to the Queensland Humanist Society. One of our goals is to have Australia be a secular state with freedom of belief. We are farther from that goal than the US and most northern European countries.

Dear David F.,

The Commonwealth Parliament is the national law-making
body and is at the heart of Australian national
government.

The Constitution allows each state to make laws with
respect to the affairs of that state. However, laws of
the Commonwealth Parliament prevail over state laws.

Laws are the end result of government policy and may
result from:

1) A particular political party policy
2) Pressure for change
3) particular community needs

A Bill (is a proposed law that has not yet passed
through Parliament) and it must go through certain steps
before it becomes law. It must also be signed by the
Governor-General. The process of signing by the
Governor-General is known as Royal Assent.

Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
The Marriage Act in order to be amended must be
done in Parliament. Hence the controversy and debate.

cont'd ...

Dear David F.,

I forgot to add that same-sex marriages are currently
not permitted under the Australian Federal Law. In 2004
the Marriage Act 1961 was amended in Federal Parliament to
define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and
that any existing same-sex marriage from a foreign country
is not to be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

The Australian Constitution can be changed only by a law
passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and approved by a majority
of voters across Australia and in a majority of states.

This process is called a Referendum. Since Federation in 1901
only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constituion have
been approved. The Marriage Act is part of the Constitution.

Dear Lexi,

We still disagree. In the US Marbury vs. Madison was the decision that decided the US Constitution must apply to the individual states. There has been no such decision made by the Australian High Court with regard to the relation between state and commonwealth.

If, as you state, the Australian Constitution takes precedence over state law please cite the applicable provision of the Australian Constitution or the Court decision giving the Commonwealth Constitution precedence. I don't think it exists.

It is my understanding that even if the High Court had stated that Commonweath funding for the chaplaincy program violated the Australian Constitution on the grounds that hiring the chaplains violated the prohibition of a religious test for office the state of Queensland could still employ the chaplains as the decision would not apply to the Queensland government.

Once a law is passed it can be enforced unless there are exemptions stated in law.

For those who believe Gays will not sue the Church for discrimination on the ground they are practising homosexual acts is false. I am a close friend of a Principal of a theological College that refused entry to a homosexual who wanted to do the Church Pastoral Minister course. It went to court and on unsuitable grounds was excluded. They do and will sue Churches if the Church refuse access to positions of ministry within the Church, or if homosexuality is identified as sin against God. Equally Priests who practise homosexual acts with minors or within the members of the Church must be excluded from ministry within the Church.

Dear David F.,

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia
clearly states - that laws of the Commonwealth
Parliament prevail over state laws if there is any
inconsistency. The High Court of Australia has ruled
that the Chaplaincy Program funding is unconstitutional.
It's up to Federal
Parliament to decide what it wants to do. The same as
it was Federal Parliament under John Howard that
instigated this program in the first place:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/chaplains-safe-despite-high-court-ruling-roxon-20120620-20n2d.html

Dear Lexi,

You are right about article 109. I am wrong.

However, I don't think the chaplaincy program was set up by an act of parliament. I think it was an administrative act which was not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.

The national chaplaincy program was a copy of the one that had been set up by the Queensland government by Kevin Rudd when Wayne Goss was premier.

Dear David F.,

Thank You.

As far as the Chaplaincy program is concerned here's
the latest news:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/laws-for-chaplains-to-pass-this-week-20120625-20y8d.html?skin=text-only

Posted by david f, Monday, 25 June 2012 11:36:13 AM

" ... I disagree. Australia has neither freedom of religion or secular government ... "

It has a limited form of "freedom of religion" limited by state and federal law to the extent of any inconsistency.

*Lexi* (haven't you run away already?) has already been told why thhe Australian guvment cannot be considered secular, including but not limited to, its pathetic muttering of the dead Lord's prayer.

..

" ... For one thing the Constitution of Australia does not apply to state law. ... "

That appears to be a misunderstanding on your part *DavidF* The Con is partly a founding document, but one that could always be over ridden by another act of the pom parliament as evidenced by the Australia Act - which incidentally removed the provision from the Con judicial section on appeals to the Head of State in Council without a referendum. Thereafter, the Con specifically states what types of laws may be made by a state, and what kind of laws may be made by the commonwealth. Thus, not only does the Con apply to state law, but it does in fact define its jurisdiction.

..

Religious laws do have status if the law of a state or the commonwealth is one spawned of religious ideal. Thereafter, and as an example, one may be legally divorced, but they does not prevent you being excluded from a religious organisation such as Islam on the grounds that the husband did not give his wife his permission. Likewise, one may be excluded from the catholic community if they do not approve of your divorce, thus, to say as *Lexi* does that religious laws have no legal status is not entirely correct.

..

The marriage act is not part of the constitution but rather is a type of law that falls into a particular jurisdiction as defined by the Con.

Posted by Josephus, Monday, 25 June 2012 1:32:40 PM

" ... They do and will sue Churches if the Church refuse access to positions of ministry within the Church, or if homosexuality is identified as sin against God. Equally Priests who practise homosexual acts with minors or within the members of the Church must be excluded from ministry within the Church. ... "

As usual you do not know what you are talking about, and are clearly none too bright.

In the first instance, as of yet the tin pot law has not been changed to remove it's discrimination against gay people and until such time as a new law or modification of the existing one gets up it remains unknown.

That is not to say that the potential for suing the churches is not there, but it depends entirely on what form the new law takes.

However, given assurances to date from most of the politicians, it is highly unlikely to take a form that insists that all religions must put aside their own beliefs and marry gay people, but is much more likely to allow for civil weddings and willing religions to do so only.

Of course, any law is subject to potential re-interpretation and re-defining by the courts, and as politicians often cock things up with poor legal drafting for arguments sake, it is conceivable, if albeit unlikely, that a potential to sue could eventuate as a consequence.

..

Now, despite the teachings of the church of the rock spider, pedophilia is pedophilia and not a homosexual act. For example, bent priests have been known not only to get up little boys, but also little girls and maybe even the old chopper sow out the back.

DreamOn,
Please explain the difference of a young priest committing anal sex with a 14 year old boy and an 18 year old if both do not resist at the time?

Dear DreamOn,

No I haven't left yet - (not bored yet) and I
certainly won't now that you've come
on board - you lovely man.

Dear Josephus,

Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages
nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in
private whatever their inclinations, which are
none of your business.

As for the sexual abuse of
children by the clergy - start your own thread
on this topic - don't try to de-rail this one.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different topics.

Lexi,
What people do in private consensually they are answerable for, it does not mean we have to have laws to legislate what is a lifelong commitment of love. Marriage defines much more love and the State is not interested in our love life. It is interested in a male and female relationship because it has potential to bring children into the world. The marriage contract is a public declaration recorded by the State for the wellbeing of family.

Consider the tremendous welfare expense on the state caused by children of fatherless homes. Mrs. Meyer a family counselor said tonight they had to deal with children brought up in a communal arrangement on the north coast of NSW were there was no single family unit and the effects on these children were horrendous.

It was not I who introduced the behaviour of priests:
"Now, despite the teachings of the church of the rock spider, pedophilia is pedophilia and not a homosexual act. For example, bent priests have been known not only to get up little boys, but also little girls and maybe even the old chopper sow out the back.Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 25 June 2012 7:28:53 PM"

Dear Josephus,

There are many human inventions. There are material inventions such as the plough, the telephone and the wheel. There are conceptual inventions such as God which have no material existence. There are structural inventions by which humans define relationships such as hierarchy which relates individuals and music which is a serial relationship of sounds of various pitch, duration, intensity and tone. Marriage is a structural invention which relates individuals to one another. Since humans have invented it they can define it any way they like. There is no natural definition of marriage.

Dear Josephus,

As I stated in my previous post - there are many different
patterns today of marriage, family and kinship - there is
no one "right" and only way except in the minds of
certain people who believe that their way is the only
"right" way- (and usually God given way as well).
These people are entitled to their views - however they
are not entitled to impose these views onto others - not
in a society such as ours. It is time that the Marriage Act
was changed to allow for equity and a fair go for all -
which is after all supposed to be one of our Australian values.

Lexi,
What absolute rubbish in this statement, "there are many different patterns today of marriage". There is only one way for children to be born into a family that gives children identity and emotional security and that is not a burden on the State. Talk to child counsellors on what makes a great family.

david f,
Again I repeat when did man or woman construct how children were born to form a family? Family is not a construct of man but a natural birth of a union betwen a man and a woman. The union of a Husband and wife is the exact biological and historical definition of marriage. Contrary to your spurious claim "There is no natural definition of marriage".

Learn what is the difference between a contract and the reality the contract covers. The written contract of marriage began in about the 3rd Century AD but the ceremony celebrating the union has been in society for many thousands of years. A State registered contract itself is not the reality. The reality is the marriage not the contract of itself. A person is not married in reality until they have consumated it in the sexual union.

Show me a healthy society that does not hold to a lifelong exclusive union of a man and a woman as maternal and paternal heads of their family.

Dear Josephus,

You are entitled to your opinion
but not your facts Sir.
I have nothing more to say to you.
I no longer wish to argue with you
as I do not want to be brought down to
your level in this discussion. You
will beat me by your obvious experience
as an illogical and abusive poster.

Dear Josephus,

Anglican Bishop Holloway wrote "Leaving Alexandria" an account of his life. He started out doctrinaire and intolerant of others. As a young student he even wrote a letter to his irreligious father to come to Jesus – a letter he was later ashamed of. In a later chapter of the book he wrote about his father and his realisation that his father was a very good man in his opposition to the rigid morality of the Scottish church. His father would rent a bus on Sunday so his workingman friends could legally get booze since bars could only serve on Sundays to travellers. (Jesus - The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.)

As he grew older and wiser he became more accepting of human frailties and realised that some of what were defined as frailties were part of the normal human condition. There is much humanity in the book:

“You no longer needed to play conceptual games with God. What you had to do was clothe the naked, feed the hungry and give cold water to the thirsty.”

“it was obvious that I could not refuse the sincere request of Peter and Richard to hear them promise to live together till death. I heard their vows in the Lady Chapel one evening after Evensong, using the form of the Prayer Book wedding service: and it took death to separate them, thirty-seven years later.”

“I have known many gay priests over the years. What has moved me most about their persistence in remaining within a Church that at best only grudgingly accepts them, and at worst actively persecutes them, is their identification not with campery and high jinks in the sanctuary, but with the figure of Jesus, the great Outsider. Many of them intuit that Jesus was himself probably gay, but whether or not that was the case, there is no doubt of his appeal to the rejected and discarded in ancient Israel, an appeal that is still strong today.”

Holloway resigned as Bishop of Edinburgh in 2000 over the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality.

cont'd ...

You asked about an example - try the United States
of America for one such example - where
the variant family patterns are
formally recognised by such official agencies as the
Bureau of the Census, the state and federal courts, the
Internal Revenue Service and government welfare
departments. In the US variant family forms have
simply come to be taken for granted. Where family
is defined as a relatively permanent group of
related people, living together and sharing responsibility
for the offspring. It looks like this is here to stay
as a permanent part of human society. Of the millions
of households in the US three-quarters contain different
variants of one kind or another.

As the social and economic factors that affect all
institutions continue to change, the family unit will
undoubtedly respond with further adaptations - that is
a fact of life.

I see the American society in moral and social decline so I now understand why! Relationships mean less and no longer for life, so the Western society is in decline.

Dear Josephus,

Actually you're wrong.
Relationships mean just as much if not more and are for life
except they are no longer restricted by the
narrow traditions of the past.

That is why a leading Gay activist in Sydney recently addmitted that Gay relationships have an average lifespan of five years.

Dear Josephus,

People are entitled to a variety of opinions
and to express them. However the sweeping
generalisation that you quote is just that -
a sweeping generalisation. It does not allow
for individual differences.

Lexi,
Please read what the marriage vows state, and marriage's intended purpose. Note 73% of heterosexual marriages last a lifetime.

Dear Josephus,

Which marriage vows would you like me to read? Today
most people prefer to write their own. And they are
personal.

As for your giving me the number
that over 70 percent of heterosexual marriages last
a lifetime time - adds nothing to this discussion.

It will be interesting to see how long same-sex marriages
last - once they have been given the go-ahead.

As said, I simply cannot take the likes of *josephus* seriously. There has been a plethora of informed debate to rebut his factually inconsistent bigotry, but like *Runner* he simply refuses to accept them and chooses to reject them without really being able to substantiate why. He is a "faithful" zealot, no doubt, much like any other around the world of whichever persuasion.

..

Posted by Josephus, Monday, 25 June 2012 1:32:40 PM

" ... Equally Priests who practise homosexual acts with minors or within the members of the Church must be excluded from ministry within the Church. ... "

Thus, based on the above, it appears that you *Josephus* aren't even capable of remembering what you write? And no, the pedophiles and those who have and do cover up for them need to go to gaol, at the very least.

..

*Joespehus* is typical of those who refuse to grow, refuse to change, and thus, like the proverbial "pillar of salt" have stultified in their perpetual obsession of looking back to old cultures and old books which I seriously doubt that he truly understands.

As my favorite Churchie and Father to me in more ways than one used to say visa the catholic church:

" ... You will know they have changed when they have a black, female Pope. ... "

And of course, in his Church, the likes of *Lexi* carry the inherent potential, like gay people, to go all the way to the top.

(rolls for conversion ;-) <snicker, snicker> )

Thereafter, and as said on numerous occasions, their like are welcome to their beliefs, however, in my book that does not extend to their desire to have others conform to their misguided (in my view) ideology.

..

If they were to simply say, well, for the following reasons and based on our belief, we do not marry gay people and otherwise do not accept gay people into our communion, however, we respect the rights of others visa vi "freedom of religion and belief" to do otherwise.

But no, perhaps because of their obsessive belief regarding their imagined "duty" to "preach the good word," they seek to actively push their views much as a drug dealer pushes heroin.

..

Incidentally, I do seem to recall someone saying that for a brief period, rome did actually "marry" gay people. Perhaps someone who knows can confirm that with citation.

..

And again, re their views on marriage, what they must understand is that what they consider to be the basis for marriage turns on their own religious beliefs, but for a host of reasons it is best that in the future they be compelled to respect the freedom of religion and belief of others.

It would have been better had they come to this of their own accord, but now it is better that they are sorted, sheep from goats and chaff from seed.

Dear DreamOn,

I recall reading in Richard Dawkins ,
"The God Delusion," about a twelve year old boy in
Ohio in 2004 who won the right in court to
wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words:

"Homosexuality is a sin. Islam is a lie,
abortion is murder. Some issues are just
black and white."

Dawkins tells us that:

"The school told him not to wear the T-shirt -
and the boy's parents sued the school.
The parents might have had a conscionable case if
they had based it on the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't.
Instead, their lawyers appealed to the
constitutional right of freedom of religion.
Their victorious lawsuit was supported by
the Alliance Defence Fund of Arizona whose
business it is to "press the legal battle for
religious freedom."

As Dawkins states:

"If such people took their stand on the right to
free speech, one might reluctantly sympathise.
But that isn't what its all about. "The right
to be Christian" seems to mean "the right to
poke your nose into other people's lives."
In other words - "If you try to stop me from
insulting homosexuals it violates my freedom
of prejudice."