Colin Hart: Cameron’s export of gay marriage interferes with Australian democracy

David Cameron may have left power months ago, but his legacy lives on. The BBC has been trumpeting same-sex weddings being carried out at British consulates in Australia which are not valid under Australian law. There have apparently already been over 30 in the capital, Canberra. The UK High Commission in Australia is without doubt acting in defiance of Australia’s Parliament, which continues to reject the redefinition of marriage. This offensive attempt to meddle with Australian democracy is part of David Cameron’s legacy of exporting same-sex marriage around the world.

It is the Foreign Office playing politics and wasting taxpayers’ money as none of these weddings (of UK citizens) will have any legal standing in Australia. What should we expect to see  next? Will it be UK embassies providing abortion facilities in Dublin, ‘sex change’ operations in Moscow, or off-licence drinks in Riyadh? Obviously not. On a whole host of other controversial or sensitive issues, in foreign countries with different cultures, Britain would, surely, be much more respectful.

What is disturbing is that the British Government’s gay marriage posturing comes at such a sensitive time in Australia, where the RC Archbishop of Hobart has recently been hauled before the Tasmanian ‘anti-discrimination’ tribunal over his views on traditional marriage. There has also been “unprecedented abuse” directed at other senior figures who support traditional marriage, and attempts have been made to pressure their employers in business and academia. For example a hotel has been bullied into cancelling a major Christian conference.

As the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Rt Revd Glenn Davies, said recently: “the campaign for same-sex marriage is not sailing on a raft of rainbows but on a barge of bullies… Not only has this minority view tried to swamp the public debate with its introspective, authoritarian denial of free speech, it has struck at the heart of Australian democracy and the freedoms that we all cherish.” (The Australian, 31 March 2017).

Responding to the British Government’s flaunting of same-sex weddings in Australia, Lyle Shelton, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, said: “We’re seeing the negative consequences of the decision that Britain has made in terms of the impacts on the rights and freedoms of other people in the UK, particularly people of faith, so I think it’s up to Australia to make its own decision and not to be swayed by what other nations might do”.

Lyle Shelton is absolutely right. Australia’s democratic process must be respected and not defied. Australians should also be alert to the fact that redefining marriage brings many problems for freedom of speech, as cases like Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland and many other such cases have abundantly shown.

Colin Hart is Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage 

Colin Hart

  • Bik Byro

    Redefining marriage has nothing to do with freedom of speech and bringing Ashers Bakery into the argument is a deceit.

    1. Gay people should be free to live the life they choose

    2. Bakers should be free to run their business in the way they wish, including the freedom to turn down requests if they choose to.

    The two are not incompatible.

    • Groan

      Though living the “life they choose” may not include being married which has a religious meaning. Personally I believe the civil partnerships should be available to all.

      • Under-the-weather

        I agree, and the issue is about introducing children into same sex marriages. There’s no reason why a civil partnership shouldn’t have the same legal position (for tax and inheritance etc) as marriage, but without the consequences for children.

  • I’m sorry, but homosexuality is a sin. They should not, in any shape or form, have the right to get married – the Bible clearly states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

  • Labour_is_bunk

    Given the recent news, is Tom Daley a “husband” or a “wife”?

    • paul parmenter

      That could become a vitally important question if and when there is a “divorce” and the courts get involved.

      • Little Black Censored

        Is there a (sinless of course) offence of adultery corresponding to the gay version of marriage, and how is it defined?

        • wisestreligion

          Gays don’t really have a concept of adultery. You see, academic researchers in this area, McWhirter and Mattison (gays themselves) whose study of homosexual behaviour was published in “The Male Couple” consider promiscuity to be definitional to male homosexuality. Monogamy, they say, is homophobic. But as monogamy is intrinsic to marriage, this is reason no. 3, after procreation and compatibility, why “gay marriage” is an oxymoron even before one considers God’s clear command in scripture.

          • Bik Byro

            You really do talk sh i t. The friends I have who are homosexual are completely devoted to each other and would regard any infidelity as adultery.

            Why don’t you try actually talking to homosexual people ? You never know, it might stop you being a bigot.

          • Dominic Stockford

            In law there is no recourse to ‘adultery’ as a cause for divorce of a ‘same-sex marriage’ couple. Fact.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            That’s because same-sex marriage is, in fact, a physical impossibility.

          • Bik Byro

            Yeah. And … ?

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Monogamy only matters because of mothers and children.

          • Bik Byro

            Monogamy matters when two people want to commit their love to each other for the rest of their lives you thick moron.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Really? Why?

          • Bik Byro

            Trying to explain to you is like showing a card trick to a pig. It would be a waste of my time and the pig still wouldn’t get it.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            How can two men be monogamous with one another when they can’t even have sex with one another?

          • Bik Byro

            So in your thick world , vaginal sex is a mandatory for staying with your partner for life. OK. Proves my point about showing a card trick to a pig.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Que???

          • Bik Byro

            You are so thick you can’t even remember what you typed this morning. Here’s a link to help your failing moronic memory even though its only a few pixels up the page.
            http://disq.us/p/1iibadh

        • Dominic Stockford

          There is no legal version of adultery in the homosexual marriage act – which means that it cannot be cited in ‘same-sex marriage’ divorce cases. This means that it isn’t the same as traditional marriage.

          • Bik Byro

            So what? The thing you need to get into your head (once you’ve pulled it out of your backside) is that it is possible for two homosexual people to love each other, want to care for and cherish each other, and look after each other and be committed to each other for the rest of their lives.

            Why anybody should want to put roadblocks in the way of them doing that just because of their own personal hangups and selfishness is beyond me.

          • Busy Mum

            Even before the 2014 SS Marriage Act, there was absolutely nothing, (apart from themselves, possibly) stopping two homosexual people loving each other, caring for and cherishing each other and being committed to each other for the rest of their lives.

          • Bik Byro

            And conservatives should do all they can to encourage lifelong commitment over promiscuity, not discourage it.

          • Busy Mum

            Lifelong commitment should be the norm, not something to be ‘encouraged’ in contrast to promiscuity. Lifelong commitment as the highest standard received its deathblow with the late C19th divorce laws and it has been a downward spiral ever since.

            It’s the same sort of thing in schools, where bad behaviour has become the expected norm, and good behaviour rewarded, rather than good behaviour the norm, with bad behaviour punished.

    • He is neither, those are now considered outdated terms. “Partner” is the official term now.

    • Dominic Stockford

      He’s a wazzock.

    • Hugh_Oxford

      Neither. He has no wife, therefore he is no husband.

  • When can we expect David and Rupert to get together at last?

  • Daphne

    Ashers has now been targeted by a woman from London who has paced an order for a cake which states gay marriage rocks. That’s persecution.

    • choccycobnobs

      No it isn’t persecution. There is a victim hierarchy and when that is taken into account, the persecution must be against the woman from London.
      London? Seems a long way to go for a bit of cake, must be a great baker.

  • Coniston

    The problem here, I believe, is that the word ‘sin’ nowhere appears in any legal document or law. It is not a legal word, it is a theological word. So if anyone is asked if gay ‘marriage’ is a sin, they should reply by asking the questioner what they mean by the word ‘sin’. Then a theological discussion could begin – perhaps.

  • choccycobnobs

    “but on a barge of bullies”. It does appear that our wonderous Human Rights Act has enabled groups of professional offence takers to sally forth with state backing.

    • Snoffle Gronch

      “professional offence takers”

      Wow. Just wow. I’m completely triggered. You should resign immediately while I binge eat and am offered compensation.

  • Hugh_Oxford

    The state can’t redefine marriage, as it doesn’t own it. If we believe the state marries us, then we concede the state can “unmarry” us. What we now have in the UK is a factually incorrect legal definition of marriage.

  • Dominic Stockford

    What we are doing in Australia on this matter is a complete disgrace. We should all write to the Australian High Commission in London and tell them we do not agree with this interference in their legal processes.