Marriage Equality campaign fast-tracks new ad to air ahead of MPs’ return to Parliament
The Royals have been credited with fast-tracking production to get a new campaign to air for Marriage Equality Australia which has been timed to coincide with the return of Parliament this week.
The campaign is relying on fundraising to help pay for its media schedule.
Working with Marriage Equality the agency turned the campaign around in just four weeks. It is being reported that there is growing pressure within certain sections of the Liberal Party to loosen its stance on insisting on a plebiscite rather than allowing MPs a free vote on the issue.
The work is the second stage for the group, which last year used marketing to support the LGBTQI community in the wake of the scrapping of the plebiscite.
The “marriage equality” being pushed by the same sex marriage proponents denies other people the right to marry who “love” their family members, or (edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy) – the homosexual lobbyists refuse all these people so-called “marriage equality”. The “marriage equality” they preach is solely an emotive propaganda slogan and nothing more. Even their “love is love” slogan is more accurately “lust is lust”.
Australia already has marriage equality. The laws of marriage apply equally to every single Australian citizen. Every single Australian has the same right to chose from a range of people that he or she can marry – and are constrained by the same laws that prevent he or she from marrying. These are defined in the Marriage Act 1961: Section 5 defines marriage as being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This applies equally, to everyone. Section 23 defines those people who you cannot marry. For instance – a brother cannot marry his sister; And a daughter cannot marry her father; And Section 94 makes Bigamy an offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. Now, all these laws pertaining to marriage apply just as equally to me as they do to any homosexual man and apply equally to my wife as they do to any lesbian woman – it’s just that homosexual men and lesbian women choose not to marry this way. Marriage is always a choice. So where is the “marriage inequality” to which same sex marriage types continually refer?…..The real issue is not to be “equal” at all (they already are), but rather what they want is to broaden the range of people that anyone can marry by re-defining the word “marriage” – that is all. They want to be able to marry people of their own sex where that is currently not permitted and this is a restriction that equally applies to all (yes….equality already exists). So both the ABILITY to marry is applied equally to everyone and the RESTRICTIONS applies equally to everyone. There is already marriage equality. But same sex marriage proponents dress it up as a grievance using emotional poetry and propaganda so that they can milk the issue to deceive as many people as they can – mostly young people because they are more naive to political manipulations and easier to sway using emotive slogans.
Just like the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are a million miles apart (and never the twain shall meet), so too, the definitions between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are a million miles apart – they cannot be legitimately defined in the same wording of the same Marriage Act as the same sex marriage proponents are trying to do…..to prove this point even further: homosexuality uses the term “gay” (for men) and “lesbian” (for women) to describe the sexual gender of their relationships. But with heterosexuality, we do not use a specific term that denotes male sexual heterosexuality nor a specific term for female sexual heterosexuality…..and the reason is?…..you guessed it, heterosexual relationships are infinitely different to homosexual relationships! Try the simple $2 test: if you have one $2 coin or two $1 coins they are of equal value but they are not the same – try putting a $2 coin in a vending machine that only takes $1 coins, or 2x$1 coins in a vending machine that only takes $2 coins….you can’t do it even though both have equal value….equal value, but different. So too it is with homosexual (sodomy) marriage compared to heterosexual marriage. History has already determined that only heterosexual marriage works and homosexual marriage is an oxymoron (the two concepts work against each other), so why would we ignore history to allow some sort of a new trendy, elitist “marriage” happen that’s achieving nothing more than an acceptability “label” for homosexuality?….ANSWER: we shouldn’t.
So much hate for something that is about love
Pipe down Neil.
The Royals have always been great and the fact this campaign is crowd funded says even more!
Thumbs up all ‘round – timing, message and execution.
Mumbrella, WTF?
Neil Aitchison linked through to a evangelican Christian website, used offensive terms like ‘sodomy’, used a bizarre faux-analogy of a vending machine for a same-sex relationship and you still published his vitriol?
Very disappointed.
Hi “What”,
Thanks for your comments. It was a lineball call. You’ll note there was another comment from him, part of which we’ve chosen to remove some of because we felt it crossed the line.
There have also been a number of other comments submitted from others on this topic which we’ve chosen not to publish.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Nurse, nurse … the loonies are out early today. Maybe they postponed the witch burnings at Salem.
First , The Marriage Act 1961 does NOT “define(s) marriage as being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. The Marriage Amendment Act 2004, rushed through parliament in a late night sitting on August 12, 2004 proclaimed (and I quote) “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.”
You expound a syllogism that “– it’s just that homosexual men and lesbian women choose not to marry this way. Marriage is always a choice. So where is the “marriage inequality” to which same sex marriage types continually refer?”
I’ll give you a clue. They make a choice, but the law forbids it. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and not blinded by religious beliefs would understand that.
The thing is Neil, Australia is a secular society. We have divisions of powers quite deliberately. Church and state are separated. In fact, the Australian Constitution makes it quite clear (albeit not referencing marriage directly in Section 116 in Chapter 5, and I quote, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.” It’s a pretty good document that you should familiarise yourself with.
But the big question is whether Malcolm has the kahunas to follow his conscience and introduce legislation to the parliament (like the LNP did in 2004) and allow a conscience vote. Or does the ghost of Abbott and the reactionary right-wing of neo-National Socialists threaten his parliamentary PM pension too much.
I won’t be holding my breath. We need to vote him and his cronies off the island.
“Neil Aitchison”, no one’s got time for your bigoted views. Take a chill pill and open your heart to all human beings.