You have to vote No or the same-sex bullies will destroy our culture

The national opinion poll on homosexual marriage is set to undermine our society. Why would any sensible person give a blank cheque to a rabble of rabid social activists bent on smashing the bedrock of our culture?

Sunday Telegraph columnist Piers Akerman.

THE opinion poll on homosexual marriage is set to undermine the freedom of expression which marks our society.

Those urging a Yes vote have not even attempted to ­address the plethora of issues it has the capacity to unleash.

Rather than ignore the matter or claim it is too complex to consider, ask yourself whether any sane individual would buy a car without checking ­whether it has an engine.

Of course they would take a look and yet Australians are being asked to buy the biggest single cultural change in our ­society by answering simply Yes or No without being given the opportunity to peek under the bonnet.

Imagine if you asked a group of children whether they liked ice cream. The majority would no doubt say yes. Then tell them it was, say, rotten-fish flavour. They would scream No.

On Thursday, the ­Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, said the survey asked one question and one question only. “The question on the survey form has been designed to be as simple and as straightforward as possible: ‘Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry’,” he said.

But that question doesn’t canvass any of the probable ­effects of the answer.

Former prime minister John Howard ridiculed the government’s proposition in a statement issued on the same day, arguing freedom of ­religion and freedom of speech were at risk.

“Thus far, the government’s response has been to wash its hands of any responsibility, merely stating that it will facilitate a private member’s bill,” Mr Howard said. “On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protections in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.

“Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has ­already said Labor will examine the exemptions from certain provisions of anti-discrimination legislation now enjoyed by reli-gious bodies. It is already Greens’ policy to ­remove them. This  is  a complex area, due in part to our federal structure. This complexity is a powerful reason why the issue must be addressed.”

Mr Howard also criticised the Yes campaign for promising to continue to try to legalise gay marriage despite the outcome of the poll, saying the wishes of the people should be respected.

“This contrast highlights just how important it is for the government to spell out, in ­advance of the vote, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of same sex marriage becoming law,” he said. “The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries, such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws.”

The bullying homosexual lobby has lashed out in an ugly vicious fashion against those, like rugby star Israel Folau, who question the change.

Violent activists have closed down debate on universities, threatened to boycott Coopers brewery and there has been an explosion outside the Australian Christian Lobby’s Can-berra headquarters.

At the same time it is ­attempting to play on the heartstrings of the nation with an emotional campaign featuring misty-eyed homosexual couples who, while enjoying fully equal status in every ­aspect of the law, insist that they their relationships are somehow unequal because they are not mentioned in the current Marriage Act and they cannot lay claim therefore to the word marriage.

Under Section 51 (xxi) of the Australian Constitution, federal parliament is given the power to make laws in respect to marriage.

While recognising changes in society to the extent that it introduced no-fault divorce, dealt with the emergence of marriage celebrants, and the marriageable age, it was fully understood that marriage was between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, as accepted under common law for millennia.

There had been no reason to add a definition because to suggest a partnership of individuals of the same sex could constitute a marriage was frankly as ridiculous as former Labor prime minister Paul Keating implied when he ­famously told Cabinet that “two blokes and a cocker spaniel” don’t constitute a family.

There is no doubt that the “love and commitment ­between two people of the same sex can be as strong as that between husband and wife”, as another former prime minister, Tony Abbott, wrote in 2010, but their union isn’t an expression of conjugal love and nor is it marriage.

Homosexual marriage is so recent an arrival on the agenda, it’s worth looking at who’s been driving it in Australia and the record shows that it hasn’t been some of those at the forefront of homosexual culture.

As gay rights activist and sometime former leader of the Australian Democrats, former Senator Brian Greig told parliament in 1999: “I would also make the point that, in my 10 years as an advocate and an ­activist, I have never met one lesbian or gay person who wants gay marriage. In fact, my experience is that the vast ­majority of gay and lesbian citizens do not support the notion of marriage because they see it as a very heterosexual and outdated institution that should be modified and not copied.”

Homosexual activist and academic Dennis Altman was quoted in The Australian on March 1, 1997: “The heated ­debate in the United States over ‘gay marriages’ has been less relevant here (Australia), where most gay organisations seem more interested in winning legal equality for relationships without necessarily demanding the religious sanction of marriage.”

When the post eventually delivers the survey form, mark it firmly No. Why would any sensible person give a blank cheque to a rabble of rabid ­social activists bent on smashing the bedrock of our culture?