01 Jul Marriage-equality is divorced from the truth says Senate Candidate.
Senate Candidate Tony Moore rejects the need for, and notion of same-sex marriage, adding weight to increasing support to retain the current definition, meaning, and value of Marriage.
(First Published 1 July 2016, Edited)
The Federal Senate candidate for Queensland, a married, and long term marriage supporter, says marriage laws do not need to change to provide individuals equal-access to the marriage value, “equal individual access already exists”.
While leftist groups, including feminists and their University strongholds are crying for ‘marriage-equality’, suggesting that marriage laws discriminate against gay-couples, Tony Moore says that inequality doesn’t exist.
“There is no inequality in individual-access to the ‘value of Australian-marriage.”
“In fact, Marriage places no value on sexuality at all; instead marriage values the exclusive complementarity of one man with one woman.”
Equal access exist just like this, he’s said: a gay individual, and a non-gay individual, both have equal, and enduring-access, and equal-right to qualify to marry a person of the opposite sex, when ever they choose to. No one forces same-sex couples to identify as a married couple, nor deny individuals access because of their sexuality. In fact, the Australian Marriage Act 1961 is 100% blind to an individual or a couple’s sexuality, as sexuality doesn’t define or establish a committed relationship.
“Many people incorrectly assume that marriage is heterosexual because heterosexuals marry, and the gay-lobby, as well as ignorance encourage the spread such misinformation. However, heterosexuality is not a qualifier of marriage, nor is homosexuality a disqualify of marriage. The Marriage Act 1961 makes no reference to sexuality, either way, and therefore it’s impossible to discriminate on that basis.”
Furthermore, He points out that few people stop to realise that, Australian homosexual individuals are currently married to people of the opposite sex, which is the factual proof that marriage laws do not discriminate based on sexuality.
However, there is still confusion about what a marriage means, particularly as the world mashes and mixes every notion or marriage into a soup, that people believe is the definition.
“Many people, especially over the last decade, believe that marriage is just a title. That marriage is universal right and title used all around the world, and this too, is incorrect. If that were true, a Australian marriage license would not be necessary to hold the value. More to the point, if marriage was ‘love is love’ or what ever you believe it to be, you could cut a marriage coupon off the back of their Kellogg’s cereal packet, and call yourself married. But marriage is valuable, and Australian marriage is special and unique to Australia, otherwise why would the gay-lobby be so embattled in staking their claim to control it.”
Marriage, once meant something, the world over and was a recognisable value that has stood the test of time, and actually been very stable through out the vast majority of our human history. Even with change, marriage has never departed from its primary value of man/woman; at least until the last decade, where a few countries allowed themselves to depart from the truth.
Regardless, historical common changes in the law to marriage, have only ever been in relation to individual access. Such as: to freely choose to marry – not to be forced into a marriage, out of a marriage, or denied the opportunity to qualify – based one’s race, nationality or religion. United Nations Universal Declaration of human Rights, Article 16, so clearly, and profoundly defines what marriage equality actually is, and its concern with marriage, to establish equality between spouses.
Article 16 states that, ‘Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.’
Often, hopeful-believers interpret Article 16, as THE ‘right to marry’ – applying THE right to the idea that same-sex couples can just marry. But the draft notes on Article 16, and their intention are deafly clear. That rights are individual; that rights are the freedom to, and freedom from.
Article 16 in fact, provides a base level ‘protective-right’ equally to intending spouses from discrimination between spouses, in relation to marriage.
If you think about it, rights are freedoms. If you enshrine an individual with ‘the right to marry’; then to exercise that right, an individual could compel or force another individual into marriage; which was exactly why Article a6 was universally declared, to prevent forced marriage, so that both intended spouses have freedom to give full consent.
“That is why there is no such thing as ‘the right to marry’; and neither is their a universal legal meaning of marriage that can be forced onto all States.”
“A person can come to Australia with an engineering degree from another country, which may not be recognised as – equal in quality, or of equal value to – an Australian engineering degree. This is because the ‘Rule of Law’ arbitrates, both protecting and defining individual-rights and Australia’s values.”
“As such, the same law must be applied to every individual in Australia, and this legal foundation applies equally to all foreign degrees, as it does to foreign marriages. Again, failure to qualify to a value, is not discrimination. You just failed to qualify, so change something, and try again.”
“Let me explain, if your foreign-marriage or foreign-university degree, fails to be equal to Australia’s definition or standard – which all Australia’s have had to attain or qualify to – why should anyone, including a same-sex couple be given ‘special exemption’, or special treatment?”
“A same-sex couple complaining that their foreign marriage is not recognised as an Australian marriage, is actually seeking ‘special exemption’ from the Australian standard because of their sexuality. To be clear, same-sex marriage does not remedy inequality and discrimination, but rather same-sex marriage introduces inequality and discrimination, in favouring homosexuality.”
With over 9.3 million individuals currently registered in Australia, as meeting the current marriage-value requirements, Tony Moore says it unjust, un-fair, and discriminatory to change the marriage Act because same-sex couple are unwilling or unable to qualify to it’s value.
“Australian Marriage is a rich Australian social fabric woven from cultural and heritage stemming back to the first registered marriages recorded in Australia in 1788 between one man and one woman; and far, far back into Indigenous culture and heritage where man and woman relationships were set apart, acknowledge and respected as a Sacred Union.”
Mr. Moore says same-sex marriage is no-more than forced-removal of marriage-values and a duplication of the civil partnership-value. Same-sex marriage forces married couples to identify and register their relationship and relationship value in sameness.
“Same-sex marriage is not necessary, as ‘marriage-equality’ doesn’t exist, and claims that it does are just fraud and fallacy, designed to appeal to willing mules for cartage into society.”
“The only intelligent choice in Australia’s marriage debate, is to retain the two existing relationship values of: the union of a man and a woman; and the civil union of two committed people; each protected by re-regulating the two distinct registration processes respectively, to be solemnised by Church and State representatives. Thereby retaining equal dignity, diversity, equality, inclusion, and respect for the freedom a couple has – regardless of their sexuality – to co-qualify to a registered Australian relationship value.“
You can get more information about how to register your non-same-sex or same-sex relationship at: https://www.qld.gov.au/law/births-deaths-marriages-and-divorces/marriage-weddings-and-civil-partnerships/civil-partnerships/entering-a-civil-partnership/