Same-sex marriage: discriminatory bill won’t get through, Malcolm Turnbull says

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he will not support changing laws to the marriage act to increase discrimination.

Malcolm Turnbull has warned far-reaching religious protections that are discriminatory would “have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament” as the Coalition grapples with division over how changes to the Marriage Act should look if the Yes vote succeeds in the postal survey.

The Prime Minister said amendments could be passed by any MP in the free vote but cautioned he would not support changing laws to increase discrimination, as some fear would happen if parliament passed a bill drafted by Liberal senator James Paterson.

Senator Paterson’s bill would extend religious protections to allow businesses that provide services to weddings the right to refuse service to gay couples.

Mr Turnbull said MPs would be free to move “any amendments they want” to a private-members bill that enters the parliament to change the Marriage Act.

“I don’t believe Australians would welcome, and certainly the government would not countenance the making legal discrimination that is unlawful today,” Mr Turnbull said.

“The fact is that assuming there is a Yes vote tomorrow — the pollsters will really be rocked if there isn’t — but assuming there is there will be a private-member’s bill and amendments could be moved and if people want to move an amendment of that kind, well they can.

“I think it would have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament, but as far as the government is concerned, we are keeping our promise.”

He said the conservative push for extensive religious protections did not mean his authority was undermined.

“It is under my prime ministership that all Australians have been given a say on this issue and if the answer is Yes then, as I promised, there will be a free vote and that means that you will have members of my party taking different views to members of the same party and ditto on the Labor side. That is what a free vote means,” he said.

Divorce ‘teachings protected’

Attorney-General Senator George Brandis has warned against creating new forms of discrimination. Picture Kym Smith

Attorney-General George Brandis says the protection of religious freedom does not include “other interests” as he warned against creating a “new form of discrimination”.

“When we talk about the protection of religious freedom, we are talking about the protection of religious freedom, not other interests,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“We are certainly not going to remove one form of discrimination and at the same time instate a new form of discrimination.

“You can protect religious freedoms ads — our law does — without creating a new form of discrimination.”

It comes as conservative cabinet minister Mathias Cormann said Dean Smith’s bill was a “good starting point” but further religious protections needed to be added.

Senator Brandis noted divorce had always against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

“I’m a member of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has always said it will not remarry divorced couples,” he said.

“Nobody has ever said that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be allowed to teach that according to Catholic doctrine and teaching that it won’t remarry divorced couples in a Catholic Church, so there is no inhibition on churches at the moment in teaching what their view, according to what their faith and doctrine of marriage means.

Date-stamped: 2017, November, 14. |  Time-stamped: 9:26 am | Author: Greg Brown | Article Title: Same-sex marriage: discriminatory bill won’t get through, Malcolm Turnbull says | Article Link: theaustralian.com.au
Share

Golden Rule No. 1: Never Trust a Politician! Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque SSM

 


Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque on Gay Marriage


Posted by Coalition 4 Marriage on September 15, 2017

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today admitted the Australian people will not know the detail of any final legislation to change the Marriage Act before casting their votes in the plebiscite.

The Australian reports the Prime Minister foreshadowed a lengthy parliamentary debate that would involve numerous as-yet-unseen amendments. In a stunning admission today Prime Minister Turnbull said the government had no control over the legislative process in the Senate.

The Prime Minister said:

“Private members will get a bill to protect religious freedoms and there could be an amendment here and an amendment there, a debate about this and a debate about that… No doubt it will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”

Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton said this was an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister.

“The Prime Minister has confirmed the Australian people are being asked to sign a blank cheque,”

said Mr Shelton.

“The Prime Minister has said he does not know the detail of the bill. He has said he does not control the legislative process. He has said that Australians will not know what protections the legislation will or will not contain.

“It’s regrettable that the dynamics in the Senate are such that members of the Government can’t even be relied on to produce a bill that protects parents’ rights, free speech and freedom of religion.

“Given the fact the Prime Minister couldn’t even convince the parliament to hold a plebiscite on marriage in the first place, how can the Australian people have confidence the parliament will ‘get it right’ on protections for parents, speech and faith?

“I say to all Australians – if you don’t know, vote ‘no’,” he concluded.

Alan Jones

A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage will give Politicians a Blank Cheque.

David Flint
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, September 15. | Author: Coalition 4 Marriage | Article Title: PRIME MINISTER ADMITS AUSTRALIANS ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHEQUE ON GAY MARRIAGE  Article Link: coalitionformarriage.com.au

PROFESSOR DAVID FLINT: A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Will Give Politicians a Blank Cheque


The Daily Telegraph
September 12, 2017 10:00pm

It’s not urgent. That’s what the proponents of same-sex marriage told the High Court. So why are we being rushed into trusting the politicians, giving them a blank cheque in what is no more than a pretend or fake ­referendum?

Voters might recall Alan Jones’s advice on the politicians’ republic: “If you don’t know, vote No.”

As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest ­energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.

Professor David Flint says politicians have hardly earned our confidence, so why are we now trusting them to change the constitution without telling us what exactly they plan to do?

David Flint

Like Professor Flint, Alan Jones was a one of a small number of media commentators recommending a No vote on whether Australia should be a republic in 1999.

Alan Jones

This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.

The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These ­included marriage.

Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage ­between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.

Thousands of demonstrators took part in a same-sex marriage rally in Sydney last weekend. Picture: AFP

This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.

In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.

And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.

To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.

The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.

The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.

The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into ­emperor-dictators.

Why won’t Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reveal his hand concerning what happens if a Yes vote gets up? Picture: Kym Smith

Is this a face of someone you give a blank cheque too?

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

Sydney Uni law courses push for Sharia law recognition

We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to ­legitimise polygamous marriages, ­demeaning seriously women’s rights.

This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, ­including underage and arranged marriages.

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

clip

If there is a Yes vote, we have no guarantee that our existing freedoms of speech and religion will be maintained. The bullying and fake news by some of the self-selected leaders of a community, one which seems to only exist in a never-ending series of initials, should put everyone on guard.

There is nothing to stop the introduction of same-sex marriage being used, as it has been in other countries, to step up filling our schools with campaigns to encourage so-called gender fluidity and enforce the access by both sexes to lavatories, showers and change rooms. There is nothing to stop some schools and other charitable institutions being forced to close down and teachers and people generally being gagged.

All of this would have been ­avoided if the details and consequences of the proposed change were on the table before the people vote, as the Constitution clearly requires.

There was no reason why a proper referendum could not have been called to coincide with the next federal election. Instead we are being asked to vote Yes and give a blank heque to, of all people, the politicians.

David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, campaigned for the No case in 1999

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017 September 12. | Time-stamped: 10:00 pm | Author: The Daily Telegraph | Article Title: DAVID FLINT: A YES VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHEQUE | Article Link: dailytelegraph.com.au
Share

Australia: Subway a “Political” OUTLET (Pro Yes Vote Sales Dockets) Marriage Equity “NO” Voters time VOTE “NO” A SECOND TIME

A Disgraceful Response, franchisee do what they are told to do, Subway is misleading the public.

Subway should not ever be a political voice it is a food outlet.

An Outlet whose clientele will have extensive numbers of voters voting:

“NO” and 

 


Over in Australia, the marriage equality debate is hitting fever pitch.

With the country set to vote on equal marriage rights in the coming weeks, messages encouraging people to vote ‘yes’ to marriage equality are popping up all over the place. In one area in Melbourne, even your Meatball Marinara comes with a message.

A Subway franchise in the city’s Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre has been printing pro-equality messages on its receipts, encouraging all its customers to vote ‘yes’ in the upcoming postal vote.

‘We believe in EQUALITY for ALL Australians,’ the message reads. ‘What about you? Vote “YES” in the Postal Survey. Do it because it’s the right thing to do.’

One sandwich lover posted her receipt on Twitter with glee, writing: ‘Found on @subwayaustralia receipt by Steve King, Melbourne. Thank you, Subway!’


The real credit for this project is goes to the franchisee, Steve King.

Steve’s team have been really ramping up the pro-equality message in their store in recent weeks, handing out pamphlets and badges to customers to encourage both voter registration and a ‘yes’ vote.

In addition, the in-store screens have been used to promote a number of posters from Australian Marriage Equality’s ‘Yes’ campaign, replacing the usual messages of new sandwiches or combo deals. Definitely a better use of electricity.

In a statement, Subway Australia says:

‘Each franchisee is a small business owner in their local community with their own personal views and beliefs. At Subway respect for every individual is a core value. We are committed to treating every person with honour, dignity and respect — regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.’


Date-stamped: 8 Sep 2017 | Time-stamped: 12:16 pm | Author: Tom Connick for metro.co.uk | Article Title: Subway store prints pro-marriage equality message on its receipts | Article Link: metro.co.uk 

A suggestion for (Marriage Equity “NO” Voters):

VOTE “NO” A SECOND TIME

Take your feet to another Food outlet one that has had the sense to stay out of the political arena of a massive social issue within Australia connected to morality and Right and Wrong!

Share

Coalition Party Room just decided to stand as one to preserve marriage. | Australian Christian Lobby

ACL Logo (Square)

Moments ago, after a marathon meeting, the Coalition Party Room just decided to stand as one to preserve marriage.

This means the Liberal and National Parties will continue to vote as a bloc to oppose any attempts to redefine marriage.

This is a tremendous outcome.

I want to thank you for all your hard work over such a long time as you and tens of thousands of Australians encouraged the government to hold their ground.

Whether you emailed your MP, signed a petition, shared a campaign in church or on social media or if you visited or called your MP, this is an incredible result.

However we know the opponents of marriage will not rest.

This is a much-needed reprieve; it is not a final victory.

Coalition MPs are likely to face a torrent of abuse and vitriol from some noisy same-sex marriage campaigners over the coming days.

So it is important that we take the opportunity to now thank the Government for making this stand.

Please send a quick email to your MP thanking them for this important decision.

Please also send a message of thanks to Prime Minister Abbott for his leadership on this issue by filling out this contact form on his website.

Thank you again for all that you have done.

God bless

Lyle Shelton
Managing Director

Source: Australian Christian Lobby

Share

Marriage Alliance Advert & Channel 10 and Channel 7 censorship.

4cmiNews Logo 144w

Copy of email sent to channel 10 and 7 executive board.

Attention Executive board of management of Channel 10 and Channel 7

Australian Christian Lobby has brought to my attention the deliberate act of censorship concerning a well made non offensive advert addressing an important issue being addressed in the nation.

ACL Newsletter: Read Here 

The last time I looked Australia was a democratic country with freedom to speak the truth and that we are an educated society well able to handle alternative debate and opinion, this censorship executed by channel 10 and 7 is a assault on the intelligence of Australians, and raises serious doubts and questions about the integrity of the channel 10 and 7 organization and its independence from political and corporate agendas seeking to influence outcomes without effective opposition. ie Gagging opinion.

I will make it a point to tell people what channel 10 & 7 does and why we as viewers should disconnect from your programming as content is manipulated to shape political & corporate outcomes

Editor: 4cminews

Email Channel 10 contactus@networkten.com.au

Or you can phone the networks

Channel 7 (02) 8777 7777

Channel 10 (02) 9650 1010

image

Share

Should a couple to live together before marriage?”

Yes or No feature

For the next week I am gonna try to find articles that are geared toward our older teen and mainly pre-marriage teens. I was once a teen not too many years back and I perfectly understand most of the issues that face our teens.

I know of the biggest lies from hell is the one of premarital sex and it goes like this we are getting married in a few months so in the eyes of God we already are married so we can have sex since we are getting married, Not so!

It is only ok after you both say “I do” do not let anyone make you believe this lie. Now what about living together?

The answer to this question depends somewhat on what is meant by “living together.” If it means having sexual relations, it is definitely wrong.
Premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture, along with all other forms of sexual immorality

The Bible promotes complete abstinence outside of (and before) marriage.

Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to.

Acts 15:20

Romans 1:29

1 Corinthians 5:1

1 Corinthians 6:13, 18

1 Corinthians 7:2

1 Corinthians 10:8

2 Corinthians 12:21

Galatians 5:19

Ephesians 5:3

Colossians 3:5

1 Thessalonians 4:3

1 Thessalonians 5:22

Jude 1:7

If “living together” means living in the same house, that is perhaps a different issue.

Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with a man and a woman living in the same house—if there is nothing immoral taking place.

1 Thessalonians 5:22

Ephesians 5:3

However, the problem arises in that there is still the appearance of immorality: and it could be a tremendous temptation for immorality.


The Bible tells us to flee immorality, not expose ourselves to constant temptations to immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). Then there is the problem of appearances. A couple who is living together is assumed to be sleeping together—that is just the nature of things. Even though living in the same house is not sinful in and of itself, the appearance of sin is there. The Bible tells us to avoid the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22; Ephesians 5:3), to flee from immorality, and not to cause anyone to stumble or be offended. As a result, it is not honoring to God for a man and a woman to live together outside of marriage.

by Randy Poole: Manager - Chief of Operations Mississippi Mending the Broken Christian Mental Health Source: Should a couple to live together before marriage?" | Randy Poole | LinkedIn
Share

5 Ways Tony Campolo and Others Miss the Bible Mark With New Views on Gay Christians

No Gay Marriage Button


Tony Campolo (Facebook)

by Shane Idleman
Tony Campolo recently said this about gay-marriage, “(L)ike so many other Christians, I was deeply uncertain about what was right.” But the Bible is crystal clear on sexual sin, including homosexuality. Unfortunately, those who are sounding the alarm are often categorized as irrational, judgmental, bigoted and intolerant. But how can we warn if we won’t confront, correct if we won’t challenge and and contend if we won’t question? We must speak the truth in love.

Opinions change, but truth does not.

My hope is that readers will read the entire article before drawing conclusions. I have nothing but compassion for those trapped in sexual sin. Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual behavior also strongly believe in unconditional love and forgiveness. To say that authentic Christians hate or fear those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith. To “confront in love” simply comes from a desire to honor God and to truly love and care for others. The ability to relate to people on their level, show genuine concern, and love them regardless of their lifestyle is the mark of true Christianity.

It’s no surprise that the church, and our nation, desperately need to hear “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” to awaken, convict and restore. It was not so long ago that we were concerned about “the fall of America.” America cannot fall because she has already fallen. We are now picking up the pieces of a broken nation reflected in our laws, our personal lives, our families and our children. America’s moral heartbeat has ceased because we cut off the source of life.

We need resuscitation, renewal and revival of the truth.

When people, groups, denominations or movements depart from absolute truth and thus quench and grieve the Spirit of God, they become mechanical in their approach to Christianity and lose the ability to guide.

The Word of God is not in their hearts “like a burning fire” (Jer. 20:9), but relative, powerless and debatable. This is what we see today.

Consider the following in light of Tony Campolo’s recent comments supporting gay-marriage:

1. The “moral” laws in the Old Testament such as killing, stealing, lying, adultery, sexual immorality and so on are all valid today.

Jesus referred often to the Old Testament, and said that He didn’t come to abolish it, but to fulfill it. Although many of the ceremonial and dietary laws of the Old Testament do not necessarily apply today, the moral laws do. They are as significant today as they have been throughout history. For example, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” To suggest that this verse is invalid today is to advocate the dangerous practice of redefining or deleting what God has said. Not to mention other stories in the Old Testament that highlight the dangers of homosexuality and all sexual sin.

The consequences of wrong actions may have changed, but the moral implications remain the same. For instance, even though we no longer stone to death those who commit adultery, this does not mean that adultery is acceptable or any less dangerous. Adultery is wrong even though there aren’t legal consequences. The laws of a nation should reflect God’s Word, but they are never above it!

2. Jesus condemned “all” sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman.

He said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man.” (Matt. 15:19-20). Jesus was implying that all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is harmful and immoral. The word “fornication” in the Greek is porneia; where the word “pornography” comes from. We cannot say, “But I was born this way.” I was born to lie, cheat, lust and deceive, but this doesn’t make it right. It makes me sinful and in need of a Savior.

3. An argument cannot be based solely on silence.

To suggest that Jesus approved of homosexuality simply because He did not use the term “homosexual,” is to imply that He approved of necrophilia, pedophilia, incest and bestiality. But of course, we know better.

4. Other passages in the New Testament are clear on this issue as well. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 are good places to start.

In short, mankind did not see fit to acknowledge God, and they suppressed the truth; therefore, God gave them over to a depraved mind—to do those things which are not proper. Homosexual behavior, and sexual sin in general, is comparable with dishonoring the body and turning from God. John Piper said, “The sexual disordering of the human race is a judgment of God for exchanging Him for the creature.”

5. Jesus said that since the beginning of creation, God created them male and female in order that they would be joined together and become one flesh.

He adds, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:9). Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s plan since creation. No matter how many laws are passed in favor of gay marriage, it will not change God’s mind. Man often rebels against God; this is nothing new.

Jesus would often speak out against sin, but His love and mercy also reached out to those who regretted and hated their condition. Forgiveness is a mark of genuine faith. We should have compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction because we all struggle with sin, but at the same time, we should not condone or excuse this type of sin any more than we condone or excuse any other sin.

I’m convinced that the majority of the churches in America are seeking to please the masses rather than convict. Judgment is never mentioned; repentance is rarely sought; and sin is often excused. We want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict. This leaves people confused and deceived because we teach and live a form of Christianity void of repentance … void of truth.

As a final word of encouragement, if you’re hopeless, depressed and confused, look to the One who created you.

He has the answers. No matter what you have done, you have the ability to turn to Christ and start anew. It’s all about who you know: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). “Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things have passed away. Look, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).


Shane Idleman is the founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Lancaster, California, just North of Los Angeles. He just released his 7th book, Desperate for More of God. Shane’s sermons, articles, books and radio program can all be found at wcfav.org, Follow him on Facebook.
06/11/2015 | by Shane Idleman | Original Source:  charismanews.com "5 Ways Tony Campolo and Others Miss the Bible Mark With New Views on Gay Christians"
Share

ACT TODAY: A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition” traditional definition of marriage

A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition”

ACT TODAY: Can we encourage you to print it off, (see PDF below) and call in at your Federal MP or Senator’s office and drop it in to them as soon as possible.  Just go unannounced to the office, and tell the receptionist that you would like to drop this document in for the MP to read.  Make sure you leave your name and address and a contact phone number and email address so he can respond. 

 
ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage HOW TO WRITE

 

Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015
Share

ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage

silent_majority_no_more-01

Christians should never be the “silent majority” Speak Up Today”
 Menu

Letter Argument Ideas

Further Notes:

Future Action:

Coalition Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List


Labor Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List


 .

Letter Argument Ideas

Rights of the Children

Same-Sex Marriage dismisses any possible impact on children where the State deliberately intervenes and forces children to be raised either without their mother or father.
There are different and complementary attributes that a mother and father bring when parenting children.

The United Nation on Rights of the Child states in article 9 “Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm the child.”

The convention also states that “Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far as possible, to be cared for by them.”

Tradition of Marriage always being between a man and woman

Marriage has always been the relationship between a man and a woman. Even in ancient Greece or Rome where homosexuality existed the term marriage was reserved for relationships between a man and a woman.

Marriage is unique as it recognises the important of marriage between a man and woman that provides opportunities for the raising of children.

Religious Freedom

Many people have argued that any bill to change the definition of marriage would include clauses to give religious exemptions. Jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Canada have shown that even with these clauses in place businesses, schools etc are forced to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage and that fines can apply for conscientious objections.

Do not Change Legislation for only a few

This debate is not about the right for homosexuals to have relationships with one another. It is about changing the definition of marriage to cater for only a small percentage of the population. We should not change something as significant as marriage for just a few.

No to a conscience vote for the coalition (this is the most important point when writing to coalition members – not relevant to Labor)

The Liberal Party has always held a position to support the family unit. Something as significant as the institution of marriage is something that a political party should have a position on and in the case of the Liberal Party, continue to support the traditional family unit.

I will be looking at how things progress in the future and hope that you support traditional marriage both individually, and that there is no conscience vote. If a motion comes to the party room, it is very important that you vote against the conscience vote! This is the way to uphold the party policy on marriage. This was the policy that the coalition took to the last election and it must be maintained.

.

Further Notes:

  • Lots of emails are good and phone calls are good. Please go ahead with them.  Hand written letters are the most powerful.  Please write several hand written letters and encourage friends to write as well.
  • A good idea is to invite a group of friends over and have everyone write three short letters each, thus multiplying your efforts.
  • It is critical that coalition MPs on the above list receive as many hand written letters as possible in the second week of June (8 to 12). These letters must urge them to oppose a conscience vote.
  • If you are a member of the relevant party it is a good idea to mention this on your letters.
  • If your local member is not on the above lists, it is a good idea to write to them as well.

.

Future Action:

This is but the start of action on this front. An organisaton is being created ensure that the definition of marriage remains as it is. In order to be up to date please register your interest at christian.ellis@live.com.au. With questions contact Christian Ellis on 0416 012 503.

Than you for being involved on such an important issue!

.

Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Alexander, John Lib NSW Bennelong (02) 9869 4288 john.alexander.mp@aph.gov.au
Brandis, George Lib QLD QLD (07) 3862 4044 senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Mayo (08) 8398 5566 jamie.briggs.mp@aph.gov.au
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Solomon (08) 8928 0180 natasha.griggs.mp@aph.gov.au
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Mitchell (02) 9899 7211 alex.hawke.mp@aph.gov.au
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW North Sydney (02) 9929 9822 joe.hockey.mp@aph.gov.au
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD Petrie (07) 3284 8008 luke.howarth.mp@aph.gov.au
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Flinders (03) 5979 3188 greg.hunt.mp@aph.gov.au
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Lyons (03) 6398 1115 eric.hutchinson.mp@aph.gov.au
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Farrer (02) 6021 3264 sussan.ley.mp@aph.gov.au
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Barker (08) 8531 2466 tony.pasin.mp@aph.gov.au
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Hinkler 0417 771 435 keith.pitt.mp@aph.gov.au
Porter, Christian Lib WA Pearce (08) 9294 3222 christian.porter.mp@aph.gov.au
Price, Melissa Lib WA Durack (08) 9964 2195 melissa.price.mp@aph.gov.au
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Berowra (02) 9980 1822 philip.ruddock.mp@aph.gov.au
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT NT (08) 8948 3555 senator.scullion@aph.gov.au
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Casey (03) 9727 0799 tony.smith.mp@aph.gov.au
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Murray (03) 5821 5371 s.stone.mp@aph.gov.au
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Gilmore (02) 4423 1782 ann.sudmalis.mp@aph.gov.au
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Hume (02) 4822 2277 angus.taylor.mp@aph.gov.au
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Robertson (02) 4322 2400 lucy.wicks.mp@aph.gov.au
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Page (02) 6622 7253 kevin.hogan.mp@aph.gov.au
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC VIC (03) 5441 4251 senator.mckenzie@aph.gov.au

 

.

Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Alexander, John Lib NSW Federal Member for Bennelong PO Box 872 Epping NSW 2121
Brandis, George Lib QLD Senator of QLD PO Box 143 Albion QLD 4010
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Federal Member for Mayo PO Box 1601 Mount Barker SA 5251
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Federal Member for Solomon PO Box 43300 Casuarina NT 811
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Federal Member for Mitchell PO Box 1173 Castle Hill NSW 2154
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW Federal Member for North Sydney PO Box 1107 North Sydney NSW 2059
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD 40 Hornibrook Esplanade Clontarf Beach QLD 4019
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Federal Member for Flinders PO Box 274 Hastings VIC 3915
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Federal Member for Lyons PO Box 50 Perth TAS 7300
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Federal Member for Farrer PO Box 672 Albury NSW 2640
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Shop 17, Murray Bridge Market Place South Terrace Murray Bridge SA 5253
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Federal Member for Hinkler PO Box 535 Bundaberg West QLD 4670
Porter, Christian Lib WA Federal Member for Pearce PO Box 1005 Midland WA 6936
Price, Melissa Lib WA Federal Member for Durack 2B/209 Foreshore Drive Geraldton WA 6530
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Federal Member for Berowra PO Box 743 Pennant Hills NSW 1715
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT Senator of Northern Territory Unit 1, 229 McMillans Road Jingili NT 810
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Federal Member for Casey Suite 1, 1 East Ridge Drive Chirnside Park VIC 3116
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Federal Member for Murray PO Box 884 Shepparton VIC 3632
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Federal Member for Gilmore PO Box 1009 Nowra NSW 2541
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Federal Member for Hume PO Box 700 Goulburn NSW 2580
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Federal Member for Robertson PO Box 577 Gosford NSW 2250
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Federal Member for Page 61-63 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC Senator of Victoria PO Box 2047, Delivery Centre Bendigo VIC 3554

 

.

Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway (02) 9671 4780 michelle.rowland.mp@aph.gov.au
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt (03) 9796 7533 anthony.byrne.mp@aph.gov.au
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills (03) 9350 5777 kelvin.thomson.mp@aph.gov.au

 

.

Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State Electorate address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway Member for Greenway PO Box 686 Seven Hills NSW 1730
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt Shop HM 2B 8-10 Overland Drive Fountain Gate VIC 3805
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills Federal Member for Wills 3 Munro Street Coburg VIC 3058
Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015
Share

Well-Known Evangelical Leader Now Embraces Gay Marriage — but Critics Claim His Announcement Is Missing Something Profound.

No Gay Marriage Button

A well-known progressive pastor who is in the headlines after announcing his support for the inclusion of same-sex couples in American churches is being accused by some of his fellow faith leaders of abandoning scripture by green-lighting committed homosexual relationships without offering any specific biblical corroboration.

Tony Campolo (Twitter via Tony Campolo)

Tony Campolo, a left-leaning preacher and former adviser to President Bill Clinton, previously taught that the Bible precludes homosexuality, though he reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage in a post published on his website earlier this week.In a statement, Campolo said that he has been “ambiguous” on sexuality over the years, as he’s been “uncertain about what was right,” but that he now has a different view when it comes to welcoming into the fold gay and lesbian couples who have committed to one another.

It has taken countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil to bring me to the place where I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the church,” he said in the statement. “For me, the most important part of that process was answering a more fundamental question: What is the point of marriage in the first place?

Campolo said that there is a spiritual dimension when it comes to marriage, and that the institution should be “primarily about spiritual growth.

He credited his own wife, Peggy, with helping him get to know gay couples who have relationships similar to theirs — a key factor in transforming his views on the matter.

Our friendships with these couples have helped me understand how important it is for the exclusion and disapproval of their unions by the Christian community to end. We in the Church should actively support such families,he said. “Furthermore, we should be doing all we can to reach, comfort and include all those precious children of God who have been wrongly led to believe that they are mistakes or just not good enough for God, simply because they are not straight.”

Despite his open embrace and change-of-heart, Campolo said he’s open to being wrong, though he mentioned issues like keeping women out of teaching roles and slavery that he said people once used the Bible to tout.

Many of those people were sincere believers, but most of us now agree that they were wrong,he said of those who condoned slavery. “I am afraid we are making the same kind of mistake again, which is why I am speaking out.

Campolo had, in the past, taken a more conservative view on homosexuality, writing in a 1999 piece for Sojourners — a publication of the Christian left — that the Bible bans same-sex relations.

I believe that the Bible does not allow for same-gender sexual intercourse or marriage. Peggy believes that within the framework of evangelical Christianity, monogamous gay marriages are permissible,
Campolo wrote, describing his previous disagreement with his wife. 

 Each of us is an evangelical with a high view of scripture. We believe in the doctrines outlined in the Apostles Creed, and know that to be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President: Albert Mohler

mohler-about-imageBut, as Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler pointed out, Campolo’s past statements about slavery, among other issues, appear to contrast deeply with what he said in his most recent release on same-sex relationships.

During a speech at Calvin College back in 1999, Campolo reportedly proclaimed that the church has shunned homosexuality for 2,000 years and that no issue, including female leadership and slavery, was ever spoken about from a biblical perspective in such unison.

So, with his most recent embrace of same-sex relations, it’s no surprise that some, like Mohler, are speaking out against Campolo’s flip-flop.

Mohler recently said on his podcast, “The Briefing,” that he, among many others, wasn’t surprised by Campolo’s new view, considering his progressive ideology, and that this isn’t the first time that Campolo has been at the center of debate over a contentious issue.

Tony Campolo says that he’s identified his entire life, since his conversion that is, as an evangelical and that he has in terms of the label, but he’s also identified himself very much on the evangelical left and he’s been involved in controversies with other evangelicals for most of that time as well,” Mohler said. “Controversies over the inerrancy of Scripture, controversies over the exclusivity of the gospel, controversies over any number of issues.

The Baptist leader also took aim at the fact that Campolo offered no “serious engagement with scripture” in his release stating his newfound views, though he pointed to the fact that Campolo has, indeed, pointed to scripture when voicing his past opposition to homosexuality.

 
“To put the matter bluntly, Tony Campolo was right then and he’s wrong now,” Mohler said.

Others, too, have piled on. In an open letter to Campolo, Pastor David Robertson of St.Peter’s Free Church in Dundee, United Kingdom, decried the lack of scripture in Campolo’s statement announcing new newfound stance; he also doubted Campolo’s sincerity.

Pastor David Robertson of St.Peter’s Free Church, Dundee UK

David RobertsonI’m sorry but I don’t believe you. I don’t believe that you ever believed that marriage was just about procreation. I don’t believe that you’ve only known gay couples for the last couple of years. I don’t believe that these arguments which you have known about for years caused you to change your mind in the past couple of months,he wrote.

The truth is that for years you have accepted homosexual relationships and SSM and when you said you didn’t you were I’m afraid being ‘economical with the truth’.


Former Christianity Today editor David Neff

DNeff-mug-for-CH-9_14b-e1415150096318-225x300Campolo’s announcement may not be all that surprising in itself, but it has led to come other discussions and debates as well, including former Christianity Today editor David Neff’s praise for Campolo’s view — a development that startled some.

I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnershipsNeff told his former outlet. “I also believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church should fortify traditional marriages.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Christianity Today editor Mark Galli

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2015-05-18 21:08:58Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com

Current Christianity Today editor Mark Galli responded to these comments by claiming that the outlet is “saddened.”

At CT, we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion. Saddened because we firmly believe that the Bible teaches that God intends the most intimate of covenant relationships to be enjoyed exclusively by a man and a woman,he wrote. “We’ve stated this view explicitly in many editorials, and it is implicit but clear in many of our feature stories.

Blogger Kimberly Wright

k wrightOn the flip side, blogger Kimberly Wright, a progressive Christian, doesn’t feel as though Campolo’s statement goes far enough to include all gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, as it speaks mainly of gay Christians who have embraced a commitment to one another.

For a man of words, the words in his statement seem very carefully chosen,” she said. “As such, they do not indicate full inclusion, they do not leave room for queer folks who are single/dating, they do not leave room for queer seekers, they do not indicate affirmation of bisexual or transgender people.

The issue of homosexuality continues to be debated in evangelical circles. While Campolo and some others have come forward in support, most evangelical churches do not welcome gays as lesbians as members or leaders.

Campolo’s announcement comes as Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City — arguably among the most well-known and respected theologians — offered a detailed defense of traditional marriage, with the Rev. Franklin Graham also speaking out against same-sex unions.

Front page image via Shutterstock.com. Jun. 10, 2015 2:16pm Billy Hallowell | Source:  theblaze.com "Well-Known Evangelical Leader Now Embraces Gay Marriage — but Critics Claim His Announcement Is Missing Something Profound"
Share