A Submission to the:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
PO Box 6100
Canberra ACT 2600
Murray McLeod-Boyle of Reformation Ministries;
PO Box 1316, Wangaratta, Victoria 3676.
Phone: 0357270502; 0427797229.
On the Topic of:
Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014
I would call upon the Committee to reject the present Bill and any others like it. The first reason is the simple dishonesty and false representation made by the Bill. This Bill does not seek true foreign marriage equality or reciprocal recognition. Not even close. It is nothing but an underhanded attempt to once more force homosexual marriage on Australia. Second, it would seem obvious that the precedent set down by this Bill would have far ranging consequences for both our sovereignty as a nation and the democracy by which we operate. Third, the attempts to justify homosexual marriage apart from the fuller discussion on the design, institution, and purpose of marriage is foolhardy, to say the least.
Therefore, I reiterate the call to rule against this Bill. I would also add that the Committee make a serious recommendation to stop this attack upon marriage. It is less than two years since the Parliament of Australia voted to retain the current Act. Let it stand in peace!
The first and fundamental flaw with this proposed legislation is that its purpose is ill conceived, being fuelled by political intrigue rather than morality and a positive interest in law.
The stated “Object” of this legislation is, “to recognise same-sex marriages solemnised in a foreign country.” Why then is the title of the legislation so misleading? Why is not the title of the legislation open, honest, and consistent in stating that the purpose of this legislation is the surreptitious introduction of same-sex marriage to Australia? After all, in the interests of equality, and given the title of the proposed legislation, should not this legislation be aimed at recognising all foreign marriages?
Why is it that this legislation, aimed at equality, is not interested in recognising foreign polygamous marriages? Why is there no interest in foreign marriages where children (as we would perceive them) are involved? Equally, with all this interest in marriage equality, why is there no talk of “divorce” equality? Why are we not willing to recognise foreign divorce procedures?
In essence, this legislation is a sham and a complete waste of Parliament’s time. It is so precisely because it is not interested in law based in morality and justice, but in the law of political intrigue, deceit, manipulation, and domination.
It is nothing less than an underhanded attempt to subvert the normal political process and force the people of this nation to accept the will of the minority. There is no real concern for marriage equality in the sense in which that term is often bandied around. Rather, as stated, it is an underhanded attempt to bring about the will of an immoral minority and force the majority to capitulate.
In this sense, the proposer of this Bill, and those that support it, are nothing short of playground bullies. Interestingly, the libertines would rail against such bullies, yet it seems that they are willing to adopt their tactics when the cause is right in their own eyes.
In truth, this proposed legislation is nothing short of an attack on Australia’s sovereignty. It expresses a desire that Australian law become that of the lowest common denominator, capitulating at every turn to the current practices of other nations. In essence, Senator Hanson-Young is guilty of treason, for these Bills continually seek to subvert the due process of law and governance in this country.
Let the Committee be reminded, please, that the issue of same-sex marriage was taken to the Parliament for its deliberation (2012). A vote was taken. The proposal was denied. The current form of the Marriage Act was upheld. Since that time, there have been constant moves to bypass that decision and find some deceitful means of implementing same-sex marriage in this country. This Bill is just the latest example.
You see, those pushing for the recognition of ‘homosexual marriage’ seem willing to use any means at their disposal, even bullying as noted. Yet, they seem to be unaware of the consequences of their action and the fact that they are tampering with the lock on the box belonging to Pandora! If we take the fundamental principle of Senator Hanson-Young’s proposal, then Australia should be willing to recognise everything that is law in another jurisdiction. Would she and her supporters really be pleased with the results?
Some countries have legalised certain drugs, which we still label as illicit. Should we immediately follow suit? Some countries have much broader abortions laws; some countries have euthanasia. Should we follow suit? Well, for those with a leftist lean, they would probably jump right on board and say, “Yes!”
Now, let us throw in the curly one. Take a licensed shooter with legally registered firearms as allowed in this country. Please note that the strictures placed upon such a one are much tighter than in some other countries. So, will Senator Hanson-Young and her supporters rally to support a campaign for the “right” to “firearm equality”? Are they prepared to say, on principle, that those governed by an Australian law, which is stricter than that of another country, have the right to purchase and use those types of firearms currently prohibited simply because they are considered legal in another jurisdiction? Would the Senator argue for “firearms equality” when it was moving in a more liberal direction?
At a guess, I am not thinking that such a proposal would give the Senator a warm tingly feeling. Yet, on principle, the two cases are identical. Thus, it is a fool’s errand to seek our morality and law in the standards set by another jurisdiction. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority is not always right. It is for this reason that our forefathers looked to God and His revelation for guidance on these matters. They looked to an Absolute that was beyond political manipulation and intrigue.
The apostle, Paul, in Romans 13:1-2 wrote, “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” It is foolishness on our part to believe that we can perpetually ignore God and His revelation in this modern age. The sovereignty of this nation is based in His absolute sovereignty. We prosper when we obey. We suffer greatly when we believe that we mere men know more than God. Similarly, we run the gauntlet when we seek to use subterfuge to throw out God’s law, which has served us well, for concepts based in the minds of lecherous men.
Similarly, questions must be raised in regard to Democracy and the democratic process. As noted above, less than two years ago the Australian Parliament voted on the issue of changing the Marriage Act so as to recognise homosexuals. The overwhelming result was that the proposal was soundly defeated.
Since that time, we have been subject to a near constant barrage by those who lost. There have been claims in regard to the Liberals not allowing a “conscience vote”, we have seen “Private Members Bills”, we are here again debating this new proposal to change Australia’s marriage laws. The question that must be asked in the context of this discussion is, “How long?” How long must the will of the people be denied and be made subject to these wrangles? How much more time and effort must be put into defending the laws of this nation from those who seek to bring us low? When will Committees like yours have the fortitude to say to the Government, “Enough is enough!” When will the “penny drop” that this rancour is only tearing our country apart – it is doing little to promote unity or equality in the true sense of the terms.
Must the righteous of this nation be constantly harassed by the few? Must it be that the righteous of this nation abandon all that is just, good, and right for the sake of an immoral minority that wish to live their lives in hedonism? At what point will the law-makers realise the futility of this path and have the fortitude to say that the Parliament has spoken?
My charge to the Committee on this matter is that you have the integrity to recommend that no more attempts of this nature be allowed on this topic for the foreseeable future. The current situation is not Democracy or democratic process, it is subterfuge and bullying. A few are seeking to use their position to force the majority to capitulate. They are effectively “thumbing their nose” at the democratic process because they are sore losers. Such attitudes should never be allowed to govern our nation.
Nor is it at all possible in a submission of this type not to place before the Committee the religious, moral, and Biblical foundation for marriage. Much is said to day about the “tradition of marriage”. Pray tell, where did that tradition come from? What was its source? Interestingly, marriage is a global phenomenon. That is hard to explain on the basic presuppositions of the moderns.
Similarly, the High Court showed its absolute ignorance in the recent case regarding the legislation proposed by the ACT when that stated that marriage was not immutable. Such ignorance is astounding, but I guess it is acceptable to ignore the facts when they do not suit your cause.
The simple reality that this Committee is faced with is that marriage is a concept found only in the Bible. It is a prescription given by God to man. It specifies that one man and one woman should be joined in marriage. Nowhere else do you find either the source of or prescription for marriage. As such, it is simply an impossibility to say that marriage can be entered into by those in a homosexual relationship.
These facts cannot be ignored, no matter how much you may find them unpalatable to your individual tastes. These facts cannot be ignored in the context of these Bills, which seek to destroy the whole institution of marriage by making it meaningless. You see, the fundamental flaw in the whole push for supposed marriage equality is to be seen in the attempt by the new radicals to divorce the form of marriage from its content. God instituted a covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. However, this was not a simple union for union’s sake. No, the covenant of marriage also had a purpose. That purpose was to bring God’s order to the world; to bring development to the world; to spread the knowledge of God throughout the world. The avenue chosen for this was the marriage covenant in which successive generations would be raised in the safe, caring environment of the family.
Today, we wish to take the form of marriage and apply it to any whilst denying the content. We seek to deny the purpose for which God gave marriage, namely, for His own glory. Furthermore, we seek to apply marriage to those who cannot and may not be married and then claim that they fit the bill by allowing IVF, adoption, and other means, right down to immoral acts of deceit, so that they can mimic the real McCoy.
Again, if we took these principles and applied them elsewhere, we would be recognised and labelled as a sham within minutes. Here, however, we choose to remain silent because the issue has become political and it is de rigueur to play the game of PC.
What the Committee must understand is that the issue of marriage is a serious one with far reaching implications for our society and for our future. It is undeniable that when marriage was held in high esteem, the Biblical pattern followed, and the institution protected, our nation fared much better. In the last decades as marriage, and subsequently family, have been systematically attacked we have witnessed the wholesale disintegration of our society and our nation. We continually prop up the façade to make it look like we are doing well, but behind the façade the white ants have eaten the heart out of the structure.
The means to regain true integrity is to return to the pattern of marriage that God gave to us in Scripture. It is, therefore, time that we stopped pretending that we can take the form of marriage, as prescribed by God, and deny the content and purpose of marriage, as given by God, and still possess a meaningful institution that prospers our nation.
 Such recognition already exists. Marriages performed legally in another jurisdiction and which conform to the Marriage Act are recognised.
 This is not her first attempt at so-called “marriage equality”.