“Yes” vote must not crush our right to religious freedom
FOR serious LGBTI activists, the same-sex marriage campaign has never been about marriage. It has been about power. The legal power that comes when same-sex and transgender marriage is enshrined in law.
That power will be used for the two main objectives of this radical movement: to control the education of children – think “Safe Schools” gender ideology – and to silence any dissenters.
The “no” campaign has said from the start that same-sex marriage would have serious consequences on what our children are taught and what we are allowed to say in public, or even believe in private.
In the event of a “yes” vote, the “no” forces will do as we have promised. We will refuse to let the LGBTI lobby remove the rights of parents over their child’s moral education or silence the voices of conscientious objectors.
Remember that the most fundamental liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is freedom of conscience and religion.
Freedom of speech is merely the means to defend our deepest conscientious convictions. By contrast, there is no “right” to homosexual marriage in any human rights instrument; it is a legal fiction devised by the decadent West with no foundation in nature or human culture. So the millions of Australians who voted “no”, and who know the consequences of redefining marriage, will be alert to attempts by radicals who would impose their view of marriage and sexuality on our children and faith communities.
The Bill proposed by Senator James Paterson is the first to seriously address freedom of speech and belief and the rights of parents.
He is a “yes” voter but wants to limit the potential for the LGBTI victors to use their new legal power to compel the conscience of other citizens. He knows that millions of Australians will continue to consider same-sex marriage to be unjust to future children. And he knows that many parents will never allow their children to be subjected to the radical gender theory and LGBTI indoctrination we have seen in the Safe Schools program.
If it is true that “yes” voters only want the right to marry the person they love, then they also will support Senator Paterson’s attempt to prevent the coercion of conscience of citizens who disagree.
We say, as we have always said, that same-sex couples are free to live as they choose and love whom they will. If the “yes” case wins, LGBTI activists will have achieved the recognition of same-sex marriage, they will have gained official affirmation from society, and good luck to them – but they cannot have the minds of our children or the voices of our pastors.
That line they cannot cross.