I DON’T SUPPORT gay marriage, but the issue will arise repeatedly if improperly considered by Parliament; with some in the ALP trying to bind MPs to a “yes” vote and the
Communist Party Greens hard-wired to impose the measure in disregard of opposition, ample evidence is appearing that gay marriage is the thin edge of the wedge for the global Left. The Liberal Party must allow MPs to vote as they believe. The cards will fall where they will.
When credible and well-sourced stories begin to appear in the reputable mainstream press — suggesting that Coalition frontbenchers personally supportive of gay marriage resign from the government, or that Liberal MPs who support gay marriage be removed from their seats at preselection, or similar heavy-handed propositions bordering on a totalitarian wielding of the Right’s dominant numbers in the party room are advanced — I would say the Liberal Party is saddling itself with a rather large problem.
Readers know I have no truck with the push to legislate gay marriage, for reasons we have discussed ad infinitum in this column.
But in the face of incessant political pressure locally and internationally on this issue, attempts to either turn the debate in Australia into a sham or to smash it to pieces with an iron fist will simply ensure it returns to the political agenda again, and again, and again — until, through the creation of the sense of inevitability the political Left is trying to engineer, the only politically viable path is to legislate it.
Last week, and less than a day after the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to legalise gay marriage in America, we looked at an academic piece that gleefully and almost spontaneously appeared in the reputable Politico magazine to trumpet that it was “time to legalise polygamy;” as I argued at the time, the instantaneous switch of left-wing liberals from fighting in favour of gay marriage to fighting in favour of polygamy (or so-called “polyamorous” marriage) was too brazen and apparently considered to be anything other than the next step in a push to completely undermine the traditional values liberal democratic societies are built upon with a view to destroying them altogether.
At the time, I was pilloried (offline as much as in this column) for jumping to conclusions off the back of the first article that materialised but those excoriations completely missed the point: there were “thinkers” on the Left all ready to go with the next step in its political quest to completely destroy marriage as a traditional institution and with it, the primacy of the family unit as the building block of society; far from representing the isolated views of an “obscure” academic, the article by Fredrik deBoer was simply the first from a growing cacophony of illiberal and chillingly resolute voices agitating for their views to prevail at any cost.
Since Dr deBoer’s article was published, the sentiments expressed in it have permeated the ongoing debate over gay marriage and, as I suggested with a more favourable reference to hardline conservative Senator Cory Bernardi’s past utterances on the subject, the distasteful objective of polygamy being the next stop for the “progressive” train as it seeks to railroad western societies into a complete breakdown of orthodox values has virtually become a mainstream aspect of the Left’s narrative as a fait accompli.
In the meantime, troglodyte conservatives in Australia bicker over stripping preselections and workshopping ways of preventing a cross-party bill from ever being tabled in Parliament as the chief mechanisms to avoid joining a battle they either lack the robust debating firepower and/or the stomach to fight, or ostensibly seek to cover their unwillingness and/or inability to argue for what they believe with the fig leaf of denying the debate is happening at all.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you support it or not, the argument over gay marriage is not going to go away in Australia at any time soon.
Now, the Greens in Britain, led by an Australian expatriate (where, incidentally, the Conservative Party legalised same-sex marriage prior to the general election in May) have signalled that they are “open to legalising polygamy,” and if this isn’t enough to break the pointless tactics of the hard Right element inside the Liberal Party then I don’t know what is.
Simply, and as sure as night follows day, the “debate” over polygamy — probably bestiality too at some later juncture, or God alone knows what else — is going to take root in the mainstream political discourse in Australia as surely as it already is in the United States and in Britain.
Closing their eyes and wishing it out of existence will no more work to the troglodyte conservatives’ advantage at that point than it will now; the only way to prevail is to fight fire with fire, and join a battle of ideas — and to date, those among out parliamentary representatives who would uphold traditional concepts and definitions of marriage and family have proven spectacularly inept at doing so.
There is a rich arsenal of debating points from which to draw in staring down calls for gay marriage — or anything else lined up behind it — and it does not necessitate the descent into bigotry to draw upon it.
For example, the right of children — in the ordinary course of events — to both a mother AND a father are an aspect of the gay marriage debate that have been all but airbrushed from existence. Where, in any meaningful sense and with impact, are the voices of the conservatives in the Liberal Party on this?
Someone posted a link during the week in the comments section of my site to an article by a girl who grew up with “two mothers” and accepting of gay lifestyles, only to realise later that she had been denied a father figure in her life and that the effects of that denial were and are permanent: consequently, she has transformed from being a gay marriage advocate to a children’s rights activist. Where has the effort been made on the political Right in Australia to find and promote similar examples in this country?
It is now crystal clear that if the gay marriage crowd triumph in Australia that polygamy and, surely, bestiality, will soon follow from the illiberal opinion engineers of the political Left; such a prospect is no longer able to be dismissed as some ambit scare tactic because that precise scenario is now unfolding in the US and Britain. The gay marriage debate, hijacked and exploited by the global political Left, originated abroad before taking root here. It is not inappropriate to frame a campaign in these terms.
But above all, critics of opponents of gay marriage have lamented that this is not an issue “of conscience” but rather one on which those elected to do so should simply lead: and in my view, such sentiments are merely a recipe for the ALP and the Greens to line up on one side, and the Liberal Party, the National Party and Family First to line up on the other. All voting as blocs, with the outcome as good as predetermined, but with some or most MPs forced to vote against their personal inclinations no debate could be said to have taken place.
Keeping the private member’s bill off the parliamentary notice paper is, in equivalent terms, tantamount to shoving the collective head of the hard Liberal Right up its own backside. This issue is everywhere, and it must be considered and responded to — one way or the other.
I don’t support gay marriage, but I do want it dealt with in the appropriate fashion, and that means a vote by both houses of Parliament.
Unlike the previous occasion such a push was considered by Parliament, everyone should be permitted to vote according to conscience, be they Liberal, National, Labor, Green, or whatever.
If the politicians get it wrong, retribution at the ballot box will be swift and savage.
But if the Liberal Party wants to call itself “liberal” at all, then it should start behaving like it, and those who have taken it upon themselves to behave like the Stasi in their pursuit of MPs in favour of gay marriage should get a grip on themselves, wake up, and smell their coffee.
After all, the Liberal Party has been perfectly content to rip into the ALP over the prospect — advanced by leadership traitor Tanya Plibersek in her attempts to appease lunar-Left activism in her own electorate — of Labor MPs being forcibly committed to support of the measure even if they are personally opposed.
It is simply not good enough for some in the Liberal Party to seek to profit politically from such outrageously totalitarian behaviour in the ALP only to turn around and behave in an almost identical fashion themselves.
The Liberals (and the Nationals, to be clear) should engage in this issue, fight the debate publicly ideas, with the end vote being a matter for individual MPs to determine in accordance with their own beliefs, consultation with their constituents, or whatever other method they utilise to arrive at a position.
Yes, the outcome might be that gay marriage passes Parliament — and if it does, then the cards must pragmatically be accepted to have fallen where they did.
But if such a free vote sees the measure defeated a second time, it would strengthen the hand of those who do not wish it to be considered again.
As distasteful as this issue is to some — including, to be clear, myself — there is only one decent and principled way to deal with it.
And that does not include bludgeoning people into silence, stifling dissent, refusing to allow differences of opinion to be aired, or preventing debate from taking place.
It’s time for the Liberal Party to put its money where its mouth is, and let its MPs do what they were elected to do: represent their constituents unimpeded by the Gestapo-like strictures of centralised control, threatening careers, or simple old-fashioned bullying.