Archived article

Same sex marriage campaign in the bush takes to YouTube
Vaughan, Malcolm, Theresa and Steve. I would like to say thank you for speaking out to vote No. Please be aware that voting No exposes you to being called a homophobe and a bigot. You will be seen as a weirdo bigoted heterosexual in today’s new world. Don’t be afraid. You know in your heart that you are not what they say you are. You no doubt have gay friends, like I do. We believe what we believe. When the Yes vote wins the day we will not be in the majority. Stay true to yourself. You must keep the faith in the face of the vitriol you will cop. That’s life.

You can vote No with love: Alice priest
@ Number 19: You say that all discrimination is morally wrong. However, fair and reasonable discrimination is everywhere around us.
I do not know what your gender is, but I think we would all agree with the discrimination that does not permit a male to enter female toilet.
The word “discrimination” has been captured by the PC brigade at the Human Rights Commission and enshrined in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 as part of the secular new age moral gospel on right and wrong.
The Human Rights zealots have re-shaped the word to mean whatever they want it to mean. For example, they authorise discrimination in favour of certain groups in our society as morally good in Section 9 and Section 10 of the Act.
In those Sections of the Act have re-badged the word “discrimination””and now call it “Special Measures”.
It is an in-house term, used by their lawyers in courts and tribunals when accusing respondents of discrimination against their clients under the Act.
They hace also referred to S.9 and S.10 to excuse their own clients’ discriminatory actions.
In other parts of the Act they give exemptions as they see fit for discriminatory behaviour. In other words, they claim that discrimination is only bad when applied by certain individuals or groups against other individuals or groups in our society in certain circumstances.
The word “discrimination” has been effectively and morally re-shaped in their own image by this secular authority.
At first glance, this is a bit Big Brother authoritarian and hypocritical, don’t you think?
So: Is it OK for secular discrimination by the Pitt Street mob but not by Christian faiths?

You can vote No with love: Alice priest
Miss Roullet has drawn timely attention to the reluctance of NO voters to openly air their views for fear of attack.
So far, five of the six comments have been YES voters firing shots at NO voter religion and race. Fair enough. To be expected.
However, this is further anecdotal evidence to explain why it is understandable that atheist and agnostic NO voters are keeping views to themselves and the survey envelope.
They are staying down in their foxholes because if they stick their heads up above the trench and who knows what part of their individual character or anatomy will be blitzkrieged by some of the more militant YES army!

You can vote No with love: Alice priest
Father Raass. I have never met you. However, as a Christian and a former Sacred Heart Alician parishioner, I will put my hand up as a No voter to say that you have nailed the essence of our side of the debate.
The word “love” is a great word in the English language.
Unfortunately, it can be ambushed to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, to quote a famous character of old.
Whatever camp one is in, no matter what opinion one has about marriage, the word “love” will always remain a constant.
In coming out as a straight to say this publicly, I extend my love to my gay friends in Alice.
Nothing for me will change in the way I have always loved and respected you no matter what your views on marriage may be. I hope my fellow No voters will also come out and express the same view.

Alice’s upbeat YES campaign for marriage equality
@Evelyne Roullet. You raise some good points in your reasons for ‘No’ voters not coming out of the woodwork in Alice. You make an excellent observation that outside those of religious faiths, marriage has been devalued and has lost much of its meaning in the hetero secular community in favour of de facto family situations. Centrelink and other agencies provide similar benefits, while gay couples with kids get similar financial entitlements. There can be no doubt that there are still, however, large silent numbers of agnostic or atheistic non-religious secular Alicians who hold marriage in the same light as their religious fellow citizens. In a small town like Alice they keep their views to themselves and the survey envelope for fear of backlash in their social and business lives in the current environment. It would be good if some of these Alicians would be game enough to articulate their ‘No’ arguments.
I would like to see the debate go beyond the highly charged emotive to the clearheaded discussion on the intention of the Constitution and peoples’ voice questions of referendum v postal survey, the jurisdictional separation of powers in any change to the Marriage Act, the parliament’s so-called ‘conscience vote’ and the ramifications of legal case precedent such as the decision in Hyde v Hyde etc. This would make any subsequent change or staus quo of the Marriage Act a much more credible exercise of due diligence that would stand the credibilty test of scrutiny by future generations. Are there any Alicians out there who are prepared to stand up to public scrutiny I wonder? I hope there are.

Alice’s upbeat YES campaign for marriage equality
Ms Finnane has done one side of the journalistic due diligence exercise seeking out and interviewing Yes lobbyists in depth.
Will Ms Finnane be completing the full circle of the due diligence exercise by seeking out and interviewing No supporters? (ahem) Yes? No? (So to speak). I look forward to it with interest.