Hum­bling to have com­mu­nity sup­port

Warragul & Drouin Gazette - - NEWS -

As a re­cently re­turned ser­vice­man (40+ years) it is ap­pro­pri­ate to ac­knowl­edge the con­tri­bu­tion to the com­mu­nity in the War­ragul/Drouin area by RSL War­ragul, Young Vet­er­ans and Voy­age Fit­ness.

Those or­gan­i­sa­tions have recog­nised the need to fa­cil­i­tate veteran fit­ness and have taken tan­gi­ble steps to achieve that ob­jec­tive.

Young vet­er­ans, via Bob Green, co­or­di­nated with var­i­ous or­gan­i­sa­tions to at­tain a lo­cal fa­cil­ity to en­hance veteran’s fit­ness, RSL War­ragul pro­vided the funds, Voy­age Fit­ness the fa­cil­ity and su­per­vi­sion at dis­counted rates.

Given the ar­du­ous train­ing and oper­a­tion en­dured by ser­vice­man, most if not all, fin­ish their ser­vice with mul­ti­ple and per­ma­nent in­juries. In­jured backs, knees, feet, skin can­cer, deaf­ness, are the de­fault body dam­age.

Add the malev­o­lence of PTSD, that may not man­i­fest for years af­ter leav­ing the mil­i­tary, the abil­ity to at­tend fit­ness cour­ses al­lows us to get fit, re­gain our mu­tual fel­low­ship and im­por­tantly re­con­nect with our civil­ian coun­ter­parts.

This is not an ad­ver­tise­ment but credit is due and on re­con­nec­tion; each time over the last 15 years I re­turned on leave to War­ragul I went to Voy­age (and its pre­vi­ous in­car­na­tion), An­thony and his staff not only re­mem­bered me but were at pains to make me feel com­fort­able and at home.

Those ex-ser­vice­men who have moved to the dis­trict and have per­haps es­chewed con­tact with the RSL I can only say that the War­ragul RSL led by Noel Tucker and Young Vet­er­ans have our in­ter­est at their core. We should re­turn that in­ter­est by join­ing those or­gan­i­sa­tions.

To have a com­mu­nity sup­port us is hum­bling. Thank you. Bill West­head, War­ragul

Mar­riage law has changed over time. Un­til 1884 mar­ried women were not al­lowed to own property.

Re­stric­tions were placed on indige­nous and non-indige­nous peo­ple in­ter­mar­ry­ing in 1918 and that wasn’t al­tered in some states un­til 1961. Up un­til 1942, girls as young as 12 and boys as young as 14, could marry.

In 1961 across Aus­tralia a min­i­mum mar­ry­ing age of 18 was in­tro­duced. Up un­til 1966 women who were mar­ried were barred from work­ing in the Com­mon­wealth Pub­lic Ser­vice. In 2004 John Howard amended the mar­riage act to ban same sex cou­ples from mar­ry­ing.

This sur­vey is sup­posed to help politi­cians de­cide whether an­other change needs to be made to the Mar­riage Act. The Mar­riage Act like all pieces of leg­is­la­tion needs to be re­viewed and, if nec­es­sary, al­tered as cir­cum­stances change.

The ques­tion in the sur­vey asks “Should the law be changed to al­low same-sex cou­ples to marry?”

If we can shut out all the mis­lead­ing hy­per­bole that is be­ing thrust at us, and just fo­cus on that sim­ple ques­tion, then the sur­vey may ac­tu­ally mean some­thing.

For some peo­ple it is an equity and jus­tice is­sue. For oth­ers it is a moral and re­li­gious is­sue. For most peo­ple it will not change their world, but for many same-sex cou­ples it will make a world of dif­fer­ence if a change to the law is made or not. Greg Tuck, War­ragul

Ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage leg­is­la­tion ex­tended by ex­ist­ing anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion leg­is­la­tion in Canada (2005) and Bri­tain (2013) has proven to be a big­ots' char­ter for sex­ual fa­nat­ics to per­se­cute and pun­ish those who re­ject aber­rant be­hav­iours.

For Canada the web­site (thep­ub­licdis­;14899) cited by He­len Case (12/9/17) pro­vides a de­tailed ar­ti­cle by Dawn Ste­fanowi­icz, who was raised in a ho­moseual mar­riage which she wholly re­pu­di­ates as a proper type of par­ent­ing as she has in a book en­ti­tled, 'Out from un­der: the im­pact of ho­mo­sex­ual par­ent­ing'.

Her ar­ti­cle dis­plays the on­flow of leg­is­la­tion which grossly in­hibits freedom of speech and opin­ion with gross fi­nan­cial penal­ties be­fore a tri­bunal for in­fringe­ments.

Daniel Man­sour, who fails to men­tion the book or the author's up­bring­ing, glibly mis­rep­re­sents the de­tail of the web­site ar­ti­cle as "il­le­git­i­mate fear mon­ger­ing".

He should care­fully study it in a slow re-read­ing as I hope other Gazette read­ers have done. Per­haps he could also read David Sergeant's 'What's changed in Bri­tain since same sex mar­riage" in the Spec­ta­tor Aus­tralia (7/9/17). Gen­der flu­id­ity wan­tonly im­posed on small chil­dren and par­ents un­able to with­draw their chil­dren from per­verted sex ed­u­ca­tion classes are but two of the gross in­iq­ui­ties enu­mer­ated.

Thus far the main­stream Aus­tralian press has been gravely re­miss in fail­ing to ex­am­ine the tu­mul­tuous so­cial, moral and le­gal con­se­quences of ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage. And Daniel Man­sour's un­ref­er­enced par­ti­san opin­ions mas­querad­ing as facts are no sub­sti­tute

Frank Car­leton, Long­warry

Bricks to the peo­ple who put junk mail in our mail box when it clearly reads “No junk mail’

Most sup­port­ers of SSM think they are sup­port­ing equal­ity and jus­tice. I ap­plaud these val­ues. But the pro­po­nents of SSM have a dif­fer­ent agenda.

“Fight­ing for gay mar­riage gen­er­ally in­volves ly­ing about what we are go­ing to do with mar­riage when we get there. [We say] that the in­sti­tu­tion of mar­riage is not go­ing to change. And that is a lie. … I don’t think it [mar­riage] should ex­ist.” (Masha Gessen 2012 Syd­ney Writ­ers Fes­ti­val)

Michelan­gelo Sig­no­rile urges gays “to fight for same-sex mar­riage and … then, once granted, re­de­fine the in­sti­tu­tion of mar­riage com­pletely, be­cause the most sub­ver­sive ac­tion les­bians and gay men can un­der­take … is to trans­form the no­tion of ‘fam­ily’ en­tirely.” (Out Dec 1992:161)

“Same sex mar­riage is a breath­tak­ingly sub­ver­sive idea.” (E.J. Graff The Amer­i­can prospect June 28, 2012)

Why must mar­riage and fam­ily be abol­ished? Mar­riage and fam­ily is an author­ity struc­ture – use­ful as a ‘check and bal­ance’ in any civil so­ci­ety. To­tal­i­tar­i­an­ism sees any other author­ity as com­pe­ti­tion and there­fore must be de­stroyed. Are the pro­po­nents of SSM re­ally pro­mot­ing to­tal­i­tar­i­an­ism?

The abo­li­tion of mar­riage was tried in Rus­sia fol­low­ing the Bol­she­vik revo­lu­tion in 1917, which re­sulted in “the fall of so­cial or­der, cul­ture, and then the econ­omy, un­leash­ing a ti­dal wave of crime, cor­rup­tion, sex­ual de­bauch­ery and chaos.

When Stalin came to power [1924], he took im­me­di­ate steps to re­store or­der. The fam­ily and ethics were re­stored, abor­tion and di­vorce made dif­fi­cult to ob­tain, etc. … for which they [the Bol­she­viks] hate him to this day” (http://her­rick­re­­vi­etu­nion.html) Must we re­peat his­tory? Janet Cow­den, Neerim South

A big bou­quet to the Rich­mond Foot­ball Club on their fan­tas­tic premier­ship win. It has put big smiles on the faces of many long suf­fer­ing fans.

An­other brick to peo­ple that lit­ter our beau­ti­ful sur­rounds. There is yet an­other shop­ping trol­ley in Hazel Creek near Ro­tary Park and a long line of rub­bish over the free­way bridge on South Rd. This area is truly beau­ti­ful and peo­ple should re­spect that.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.