How the Totalitarian Same Sex Marriage Activists Seek to Censor all Debate
How the Totalitarian Same Sex Marriage Activists Seek to Censor all Debate
“Won’t anyone rid me of this troublesome Priest?”
I often look at social justice warriors with a jaundice view. Many are well meaning people who are following what they see as being the right thing to do. However many, too many, are just hate filled, power hungry fanatics trying build their ideological Utopias. Worse, many are so dogmatic that all descent must be crushed and never ever be allowed to be expressed.
Take for example case that has just been lodged with anti-discrimination commission that is taking the Catholic Church to court for printing a booklet that defends traditional marriage.
The commission has received a complaint from Greens Candidate and Transgender Activist Martine Delaney that Archbishop Porteus and the Catholic Bishops Conference breached the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act by printing a booklet titled: “Don’t Mess with Marriage -A Pastoral Letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia to all Australians on the ‘Same-sex Marriage’ Debate”
Archbishop Julian Porteus has vowed to fight the complaint telling the Australian newspaper,
“I am prepared to vigorously defend any complaint against me that Tasmania’s Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner may proceed with.”
“I am aware that there are some in society who would seek to silence the church on this issue and indeed prevent Christians expressing their beliefs in the public square on important social issues. Increasingly, they are trying to manipulate anti-discrimination legislation to achieve this end.”
The complaint is being lodged by Martine Delaney who says that ‘she’ has change from being a man in into woman and now lives in a same sex relationship with a woman. (You just can’t make this stuff up.) Delaney claims that ‘she’ was humiliated by the booklet claiming the book says,
“same-sex partners don’t deserve equal recognition, same-sex-attracted people are not ‘whole’ people and the children of same-sex partners are not ‘healthy’.”
Naturally Delaney concludes that as a result:
By spreading this message, the church does immeasurable harm to the wellbeing of same-sex couples and their families across Tasmania and the nation — particularly those who are students, teachers or parents within the Catholic education system.
As such Martine Delaney claims that the booklet breached section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits offence and humiliation on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Here is the actual section of the Tasmanian Act:
17. Prohibition of certain conduct and sexual harassment
(1) A person must not engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of an attribute referred to in section 16(e), (a), (b), (c), (d), (ea), (eb) and (k), (f), (fa), (g), (h), (i) or (j) in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed.
(2) A person must not sexually harass another person.
(3) Sexual harassment takes place if a person –
(a) subjects another person to an unsolicited act of physical contact of a sexual nature; or
(b) makes an unwelcome sexual advance or an unwelcome request for sexual favours to another person; or
(c) makes an unwelcome remark or statement with sexual connotations to another person or about another person in that person’s presence; or
(d) makes any unwelcome gesture, action or comment of a sexual nature; or
(e) engages in conduct of a sexual nature in relation to another person that is offensive to that person – in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed
The key words in the Act that can create a problem for the Archbishop pertain to the vague conditions of a person being ‘offended’, ‘humiliated’ or ‘insulted’. Since such conditions can only be subjectively measured it will be up to the presiding judge to decide if any line has been crossed.
If the decision falls against the archbishop and the booklet then it may have the effect of criminalising counter arguments to the Same Sex marriage debate.
Archbishop Julian Porteus claims that the complaint “represents the rise of a new intolerance against Christianity in Australian society, and more generally a threat to freedom of speech.”
About the Booklet
The booklet title “Don’t Mess With Marriage” is freely available as a download as a PDF on the internet. It is hardly ground-shaking radicalism but it does sit well with in the traditions, culture and belief of Catholic teaching. It quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church and various other sources to support its claims. Any clear headed and dispassionate read of the document would conclude that its greatest sin is to question the ‘Same Sex’ dogma. If that is a crime then I would say that most Australians are just as guilty as the Archbishop.
However the booklet does finish with an almost prophetic note as it lists the consequences of changes to the ‘Marriage Act.’ (Read them and weep.)
Here are a few real life examples that have occurred recently:
- The City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordered Christian ministers to perform samesex weddings under pain of 180 days’ imprisonment for each day the ceremony is not performed and fines of $1000 per day; some British MPs have threatened to remove the marriage licences from clergy who fail to conduct ‘same-sex marriages’
- Clergy in Holland, France, Spain, the US and Australia have been threatened with prosecution for ‘hate speech’ for upholding their faith tradition’s position on marriage; the City of Houston, Texas, has even subpoenaed pastors, compelling them to submit sermons to legal scrutiny when discussing sexuality
- In Colorado and Oregon, courts have fined bakers who refused on religious or conscientious grounds to bake wedding cakes for ‘same-sex weddings’; in New Mexico a wedding photographer was fined for refusing to do photography for such a ceremony; and in Illinois accommodation providers have been sued for not providing honeymoon packages after ‘same-sex weddings’
- Yeshiva University in New York City was prosecuted for not providing accommodation to ‘same-sex married couples’ and other Catholic university colleges have been threatened with similar actions
- Catholic adoption agencies in Britain and some American states have been forced to close for not placing children with samesex couples: for example, Evangelical Child Family Services in Illinois (US) was shut down for its refusal to do so
- Catholic organisations in some American states have been forced to extend spousal employment benefits to same-sex partners
- In New Jersey an online dating service was sued for failing to provide services to same-sex couples and a doctor in San Diego County was prosecuted after refusing personally to participate in the reproduction of a fatherless child through artificial insemination
- Parents in Canada and several European countries have been required to leave their children in sex-education classes that teach the goodness of homosexual activity and its equality with heterosexual marital activity; for example, David and Tanya Parker objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same-sex marriage after it was legalised by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, leading to David being handcuffed and arrested for trying to pull his son out of class for that lesson. They were told they had no right to do so
- The Law Society in England revoked permission for a group called ‘Christian Concern’ to use its premises because the group supported traditional marriage which the Law Society said was contrary to its ‘diversity policy’
- In the US, Canada and Denmark pastors or religious organisations have been forced to allow same-sex marriages in their churches or halls: Ocean Grove Methodist Camp in New Jersey (US) had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they do not allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds
- British MPs have threatened to stop churches holding weddings if they do not agree to conduct same-sex ones
- The Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam and a Bishop in Spain have been threatened with prosecution for ‘hate speech’ merely for restating the position of their religious traditions
- The Deputy Chief Psychiatrist of the state of Victoria was pressured to resign his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission after joining 150 doctors who told a Senate inquiry that children do better with a mum and dad; in several US states and in England psychologists have also lost positions for stating that they favour traditional marriage or families based thereon
- Having allowed ‘same-sex marriages’, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil and pressure for their legalisation is strong in Canada and elsewhere
- Businessmen, athletes, commentators, teachers, doctors and nurses, religious leaders and others in several countries who have spoken in support of traditional marriage have been vilified in the media, denied employment or business contracts, and threatened with prosecution
We can now add to the list a Tasmanian Archbishop is being hauled through the Anti-discrimination tribunal for the daring to question the Same Sex Marriage dogma.
The totalitarians are coming.
Just a thought. A careful reading of Section 17 of the Act (see above) does not read like it should be used to censor opinions. Overall it looks more like a provision to prevent sexual harassment. It will take a lot of sophistry to interpret it in any other way.