Yes, Muehlenberg’s rant on the ALP changing their platform in favour of same-sex marriage yesterday was hilarious. But now it has turned deadly serious.
Here is a comment posted to Muehlenberg’s blog post from a Christian father who lost his gay son to suicide – and Muehlenberg’s heartless response. This is extremist Christianity at its finest. I really don’t think this needs any further commentary except to say my deepest sympathies are with Mr Sutherland and his family.
Michael Sutherland – 4.12.11 / 7pm
I too am a christian and I used to believe that same as you, but just last year my own son, Jeremiah, took his life because he was gay and knew that none of his friends or me and my wife would accept him.
I have since then changed my position on the issue, I would have much rathered I have my son with me today and for him to be able to face gods judgement and have a chance to repent, than for him to have taken his own life and go straight into satans lair.
I’m sorry to see that you all feel that love is a bad thing. There isn’t much of it left in the world and I say we should promote as much love as possible, whether that be heterosexual love or homosexual love. You say that it will harm our children to know that it’s okay to be gay, in fact the opposite is true.
I hope that everyone here takes a good look at what they’re saying and how they speak to their own children. For me it was too late, but it’s not too late for you. Only God can pass judgement on others, it is not up to us to do so.
We can all sympathise and pray for this, as it is a difficult matter indeed. But it is quite remiss of you to take a personal tragedy and seek to get political mileage out of it, to push an agenda, or to seek to lay a guilt trip on those who disagree with you. I and my readers know nothing of your situation so of course we cannot comment on it. No one begrudges your concerns over what happened, but I for one must still call your bluff.
The biblical truth on homosexuality did not result in this sad situation. So don’t seek to make us somehow responsible. If a loved one of mine embraced this lifestyle I would of course still love him or her, but I would also tell them the truth about this dangerous, high-risk and unhealthy lifestyle. You say you “did not accept him”. Again, I know nothing of your situation, so it is unfair to expect me to say anything on this, but one can accept and love a person while not approving of a dangerous lifestyle. I can love a drug addict or alcoholic while strongly disproving of the actions which are killing these people.
And we know that homosexuals have all sorts of problems which are due to the lifestyle itself, not because of social disapproval. For example, homosexual suicide rates are just as high in places where it is fully accepted (eg., Sydney or San Francisco or Amsterdam) as anywhere else. So disapproval (even by parents) is not at all the core cause of suicide here.
If you claim to be a Christian then you should know that love has absolutely nothing to do with lust, or with mere feelings, or with violating God’s principles of human sexuality. Indeed, real biblical love has to do with keeping God’s commandments, not openly and defiantly breaking them and defying them.
And any parent will want what is best for their children. A lifestyle which basically guarantees a shortened life is not best for any child. A loving parent will do all they can to keep their children out of such a lifestyle, and tell them the truth about it. They certainly will not falsely and unbiblically say that all loves are the same.
Indeed, as one commentator just said elsewhere: “Heterosexual couplings are not identical to homosexual couplings. Heterosexual couplings are the sorts of couplings required for the continuation of our species. Strangely, the gay crowd already has a term for this: ‘breeders,’ which is often used pejoratively in reference to heterosexuals. It is inconsistent to insist on redefining marriage under the ‘marriage equality’ banner, when they, perhaps in a Freudian way when they use that term, admit that their sexual activity is not identical to heterosexual sexual activity.”
So we all can and will keep you in prayer (indeed I already have), but none of us need to buy your unbiblical and unhelpful change of direction here.
Well, it’s been a long and frustrating day on the same-sex marriage campaign trail, but there is a little ray of sunshine at the end of it: that loud explosion you just heard was right-wing Catholic conservative Bill Muehlenberg blowing a gasket. I think the reverberations of the explosion are still being felt in Moscow!
Poor old Bill is just starting to realise he’s the minority. While he huffs and puffs and tries to blow the homosexual lobby down, he’s livid that the rest of Christendom really doesn’t give a shit. Just 50-100 people turned up for the pro-traditional marriage rally today – versus a reported 10,000 in favour of same-sex marriage – and Bill is on the war path.
Further, in a move that’s likely to distance him and his ilk even further from the halls of power, he’s lashed out and called the Prime Minister “a fornicating, socialist atheist”. With that kind of rancid rhetoric, Bill’s less likely to get invited to dinner at the Lodge than the Get-Up representatives from teh ‘Homosexual Lobby’ who paid $30,000 for their dinner invite and are still waiting … and waiting … and waiting.
Do go and read Bill’s blog, just for the chuckles.
Don’t be put off by the ominous title – it’s a laugh a minute comic romp. Someone should make a movie of this blog post starring Jim Carrey. You’ll laugh until you cry – I promise!
Meanwhile, I can’t help imagining that Bill (pictured here):
Now looks very much like this:
Better watch that blood pressure, Bill. We wouldn’t want to lose you. Australia already has too few really funny comedy acts.
Chrys Stevenson
(fully paid up life member of teh Homosexual Lobby)
* Variety: Muehlenberg is a comic genius – 5 stars!
* Three Little Pigs: Amusing, but on balance we prefer the comic stylings of Jim Wallace – perhaps it’s a pig thing.
The best way I know to combat bigotry is to shine a spotlight on it. I was at the debate on Civil Partnerships at Queensland Parliament House this week (30/11/2011). Several of the comments had me holding my hand to my mouth in horror. Many had me laughing they were so outrageous.
Politicians’ bigotry should not be hidden away in Hansard where few people will read it. It should be out in the open and freely circulating so that voters can find it easily when searching for information on their local candidates.
Perhaps the worst speech of the night came from Chris Foley, member for Maryborough. There were others and you can read them on Hansard.
Margaret Keech, member for Albert, gave a particularly cloying defence of bigotry in which she managed to insult just about everyone by drawing an analogy between the strength of Christians’ ownership of traditional marriage and the strength of Aborigines’ commitment to the land. Ms Keech’s decision to vote against the bill was particularly odious in view of the fact she, reportedly, has a gay son.
But, let us move on to Mr Chris Foley, the Independent MP for Maryborough.
Mr Foley began with the all too familiar ‘some of my best friends are gay/black/jewish’ canard which is inevitably followed by a stream of homophobic/racist nonsense. He didn’t waver from the formula.
“I have a number of gay friends who I see regularly—” said Foley.
This brought a predictable groan from both his fellow MPS and from the gallery.
“Two of our lifelong friends are a young lesbian couple who have just had a baby. We visited them in hospital and wished them well with their baby.”
But Foley doesn’t think his friends’ baby should have the protection of parents with a legally recognised partnership.
He continued (though he really shouldn’t have):
“The first time I met one of my best friends who comes to visit me regularly in parliament was in a former life when I was a full-time piano bar singer. He tried to pick me up. He would be one of the gayest people I have ever met in my life. I will never forget the first time he came in. He had the handbag, the lipstick and everything going on—”
There was a collective gasp from the floor and the gallery. The gayest person he had ever met in his life???? I think that’s when my hand involuntarily flew up to my mouth.
There was such outrage at this remark the speaker had to call for order.
Yet, Foley blundered on:
“This particular gentleman has been a friend of mine for over 30 years. He has since changed his mind in terms of relationships and has gone on to marry his wife and they have four children. I want to tell members that he was a very good friend of mine when he was gay and now that he is straight he has also continued to be a very good friend of mine.”
Yes, Mr Foley, so you suggest that all those damned homosexuals up in the public gallery should just ‘change their minds’ and marry someone of the opposite sex instead? Did it ever occur to you that this ‘friend’ (if he exists) is bisexual? Or homosexual and repressing his sexuality? There are many homosexuals in the community who are, or who have been married with children. That doesn’t make them straight, Mr Foley. Nor does it make them happy, whole, or psychologically well adjusted. Note that Foley doesn’t mention his friend is ‘happily‘ married.
Next, Foley launched artlessly into the ‘slippery slope’ argument:
“Where do you stop when you change the time-honoured principle of the way relationships have always been? How do we then say polygamy is wrong when someone has more than one wife? How do we then say polyandry—where a woman chooses to have more than one husband—is not an appropriate relationship? How do we say polyamory—where there are multiple relationships—is wrong? There has been lobbying from all sides on the issue. I must admit that I had to reach for a dictionary when some of these terms were presented to me during the hearing.
It is my contention that one of the dangers of this bill at law is that, once you start to move away from traditional marriage relationships, you set yourself adrift on a sea without an anchor and anything goes. We start to push the boundaries a little towards people having all sorts of totally strange ideas.”
And, of course, having used all the usual cliches, Foley brings it home by casting Christians as the true victims in the debate:
“When I look at this argument I am very concerned that Christians are often portrayed as being hateful or spiteful towards gay people in particular. I just do not see that to be true in the Christians that I know. They have nothing but love and grace towards people regardless of their orientation. In some respects I believe that this has become an ipso facto referendum on whether Christianity is some sort of bigoted and uncaring religion. “
Yes, Mr Foley. The Christians opposing civil unions and same-sex marriage are so loving and caring they ignore the evidence that homosexuality is not chosen and cannot be changed. They ignore the evidence that psychological distress and suicide attempts are astronomically higher in the gay community than the general population. They close their ears to expert opinion that this is linked to discrimination against the gay community. Gay teenagers are killing themselves, but the good Christians think it is more important that their sensibilities about marriage are preserved.
And why would a gay teen kill themselves? Because Christians, Mr Foley, are telling them they are less than equal, not normal, and sinful in the eyes of God. Because Christians, Mr Foley are telling them they can change (when they know they cannot). Christians equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality when what most homosexuals want is simply a loving, monogamous relationship with a consenting adult partner – the same as the rest of us. And then Christians tut-tut and shake their heads when gay teens are bullied at school – completely denying the fact that it is their attitudes which precipitate such behaviour.
Christians are telling gay teens the only way they can have a ‘normal’ family life is to deny their sexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex – ruining not only their life, but, potentially, that of their spouse and any children of that misgotten union. And if they choose not to marry, Mr Foley, your good Christian friends tell them, “That’s okay, providing you never have an intimate sexual relationship or have children.” How would you have felt, Mr Foley, if you had been told that as a vulnerable teenager?
What’s more these bigoted, homophobic Christians even ignore the fact that other Christians, reading from the same holy book, following the same Christ and worshipping the same god find no problems whatsoever with civil unions or same-sex marriage. It never occurs to them for one moment that there might be a kinder, more humane way of looking at things – they are too preoccupied shoring up their own prejudice.
But none of that figures on Mr Foley’s radar. He concludes:
“As a matter of conscience I cannot support the legislation, but I do so with a struggle in my heart and I wish no ill feeling towards people who share a different point of view.”
And my response? My fat arse you don’t, Mr Foley!
The people of Maryborough should be shocked and embarrassed to have a representative who apparently did no research whatsoever into homosexuality before voting on the bill. Instead, Foley based his decision on his own ignorance and bigotry and then had the unmitigated hide to display that ignorance proudly ‘for the record’.
Let us pause for a moment and contrast Foley’s stance with that of my local MP, Peter Wellington. Mr Wellington is no screaming lefty. He was once a member of the National Party, now an independent. He is also a Christian. This is how someone who has done the research and approached the question openly and honestly viewed the question of civil unions:
Mr Wellington began by reading some correspondence, for and against the bill, from members of his constituency. Then he read a notice he had received from the Australian Family Association – a conservative Christian lobby group:
“This is an interesting one from the Australian Family Association. It is headed ‘Campaign to target MPs who support Civil Partnerships Bill’. It states—
An Australian Family Association leaflet campaign will target any MPs who back the controversial Civil Partnerships Bill,
scheduled for a tight vote in the Queensland parliament next week.
MPs who support the Civil Partnerships Bill can expect churches everywhere to help letterbox their electorates with leaflets similar
to those the AFA distributed in the seat of Capricornia in recent weeks (see below) though in this case the leaflet will conclude …‘When you vote … place___ MP last!’
Now Wellington began to roar:
“I do not agree with the Australian Family Association’s view that this bill is attacking the institution of marriage or is introducing same-sex marriage to Queensland. The God I believe in does not threaten or intimidate people who may have a different view. I say tonight to the Australian Family Association and to the other people who have contacted my office and threatened to campaign against me: I will vote for what I think is right and just, and I will not be intimidated, whoever you are. I will support this bill.
I do not wear my Christianity like a badge on my chest, but the God I know would never sanction behaviour that threatens people cruelly because of their genetic make-up.
… I believe this bill will simply provide for a registry whereby eligible heterosexual and homosexual couples in relationships can apply for registration as a civil partnership. I will be supporting the bill. As an Independent, I am proud that I am able to vote according to what I believe is right and just. I am not intimidated by anyone or any interest group.”
Contemptibly, the Liberal National Party not only voted as a bloc against the bill, they did so at the direction of their unelected leader, Campbell Newman who has put on record his support for same-sex marriage. Further, they did not even have the courage to explain their personal objections to the bill – only one representative for the LNP spoke against the bill, the rest sat silent.
People of Queensland should be aware that Newman and several of his MPs put aside what they knew and even acknowledged to be right in order to make a political point. A sharp contrast to Peter Wellington who may well lose his seat for doing the right thing.
Look for the name of your local MP in that list and consider, before casting your vote in the next state election, whether you want to vote for someone who puts what is right above what is politically expedient. Consider whether you want to vote for someone who does not support the full equality of all Queenslanders.
Skeptical readers may have seen the name Stanislaw Burzynski floating around the internet of late. Dr Burzynski believes he has found the cure for cancer and is accepting enormous amounts of money from desperate people to enrol them in his ‘trials’.
Burzynski claims that a group of peptides which he calls ‘antineoplaston’ are the key to curing cancer. He administers this treatment in ‘clinical trials’ at his Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.
It probably won’t come as a great shock to you (Burzynski not having won the Nobel prize) that independent studies have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski’s own studies. In fact, the mainstream medical community seems unanimously convinced that Burzynski’s claims are nothing more than ‘scientific nonsense’.
Burzynski has been constantly in trouble with the law since 1993 when he was taken to court for treating patients with a non-FDA approved drug.
He was found guilty of fraud in 1994 and had severe advertising restrictions placed on him in 1998. He was in trouble with the FDA again in 2009 for conducting trials which did not adequately minimize risk to patients. In 2010 he was up on ten charges including:
a failure to practice medicine in an acceptable professional manner
a failure to meet the standard of care
negligence in performing medical services
failure to use professional diligence
failure to safeguard against potential complications
failure to disclose reasonably foreseeable side effects of a procedure or treatment
failure to disclose reasonable alternative treatments to a proposed procedure or treatment
failure to obtain informed consent from the patient or other person authorized by law to consent to treatment on the patient’s behalf before performing tests, treatments, or procedures
non-compliant prescription or administration of a drug
unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or injure the public
A 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business , which uncritically promoted Burzynski’s unproven claims, only served to spread his reputation as a quack and charlatan of the first order.
But here is the fun bit. In the last few weeks, a Mr Marc Stephens, who identifies himself as ‘representing’ Burzynski has been writing pseudo-legal letters to bloggers who criticize the good doctor. In the strongest possible language Stephens demands that articles critical of Burzynski be taken down ….. or else. These letters are so reminiscent of those that emanate from Nigerian scammers – or even uber-troll Dave Mabus – that it’s impossible to read them without laughing out loud.
One of the recipients of Mr Stephens’ correspondence is Andy Lewis who runs the Quackometer blog. By publishing Stephens’ hilarious threats, Lewis unleashed the ‘Streisand’ effect. This well-known internet phenomenon proves the theory that the more you try to hush something up on the internet the more likely it is to go viral. Always willing to sing for skepticism, this is my small choral contribution to spreading the word about Burzynski. Many thanks to Marc Stephens – without his trollish letters I would probably have never heard about Burzynski, let alone felt motivated to write about him.
Do pop over to Quackometer to read the full extent of Marc Stephens’ dumbfuckery. But, for your reading pleasure, here’s a short extract. Tip -it’s much more fun if you read it aloud in a very angry voice:
You have a history of lying in your articles since 2008. All articles and videos posted from your little network are being forwarded to local authorities, as well as local counsel. It is your responsibility to understand when you brake[sic] the law. I am only obligated to show you in court. I am giving you final warning to shut the article down. The days of no one pursuing you is over. Quackwatch, Ratbags, and the rest of you Skeptics days are numbered.
So, since you have a history of being stubborn, you better spend the rest of the day researching the word Fraud … Your source of information are all frauds, and none are medical doctors. You being apart of the same network makes you guilty, in the eyes of the jurors.
Be smart and considerate for your family and new child, and shut the article down..Immediately
… when I present to the juror that my client and his cancer treatment has went up against 5 Grand Juries which involved the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Aetna Life Insurance, Emprise, Inc., Texas State Medical Board, and the United States Government, and was found not guilty in all 5 cases, you will wish you never wrote your article. … I am going to pursue you at the highest extent of the law.
If you had no history of lying, and if you were not apart of a fraud network I would take the time to explain your article word for word, but you already know what defamation is. I’ve already recorded all of your articles from previous years as well as legal notice sent by other attorneys for different matters. As I mentioned, I am not playing games with you. You have a history of being stubborn which will play right into my hands. Be smart and considerate for your family and new child, and shut the article down..Immediately. FINAL WARNING.
Regards,
Marc Stephens
I know you will be shocked to hear that Marc Stephens isn’t a real lawyer – perhaps he plays one on TV?
My good friends, Ed Brown, from the Really, Ed Brown blog and Lucas Randall (aka Codenix) have added their voices to the Streisand effect and they provide some good links to more information on Burzynski and Stephens. I’m sure they won’t mind me sharing them here, but go visit their blogs as well – they’re good ‘uns.
*That’s Chrys with a ‘y’ and Stevenson with a ‘v’, Mr Stephens. I’ll be delighted to publish any threatening letters you care to send. I have nothing to lose and a passionate dislike for bullies and frauds – especially those who target the parents of dying children (thanks Peter Bowditch).
But wait … there’s more! It seems our delightful Marc Stephens has a history of writing abusive emails in defence of Dr Burzynski. This one was directed to someone who simply warned that people should be wary of alternative treatments. It’s a doozy. Stephens says, in part:
“You are stubborn which is why god gave you so much pain in your life. God hate ugly as they say. This is also why your comments are filled with ignorance, hate, and lies. you work for the devil now.. Wake up miss cancer patient of the decade. You probably LIED about cancer as well..you need attention.
In the end I will be laughing at all of you psychos. Go drink a glass of chemo..on the rocks. You are psycho but at least you have an excuse. Radiation and chemo turned you out..you no longer think with logic.
I already know your name and address. So good luck if a suit is at your front door. You talk too much thats how I found you. Lol. Be a good girl..hope you dont have pain in your thighs anytime soon..your already a pain in the ***… Lol.”
Amongst this stream of invective, Stephens also shares his contact details:
“Feel free to contact me anytime 562-843-9398 [Long Beach/Irvine, California] or mastephens1@gmail.com. Many people are unaware that Dr. Burzynski patients are treated and are doing great. Don’t fall pray to propaganda. There is also a movie out (documentary) about Dr. Burzynski which has won numerous awards..I suggest you watch it. Thursday March 31 I am very serious. Thank you Marc Stephens. fyi..Dont think your IP is not tracked. Good night.”
Update: And a brilliant blog post on Marc Stephens, the termination of his association with Burzynski, how he has almost certainly broken California law, and the back-alley dobermans Burzynski has hired in his stead from Ken at Popehat.
If you receive a threat on behalf of the Burzynski clinic, it might be a good idea to drop Ken and his fellow real attorneys a line.
Here’s a new video from the Australian Secular Lobby (ASL). It has to be seen to be believed. In short, the ASL claims that Peter Garrett’s commitment to allow secular welfare workers into state schools is a huge sham.
Here are some salient points:
1. Gillard announces the extension of funding for existing chaplaincy to 2014 and says the program will be extended to a further 1000 schools.
2. Garrett announces the program is to be changed to allow secular welfare workers.
3. In practice, however, it appears that new ‘secular welfare workers’ will only be populating these extra 1000 schools.
4. Further, of the 1000 new places, 500 are likely to go to church schools – so probably only a maximum of 500 of 3,700 schools will have Garrett’s supposed choice of either a chaplain or a student welfare worker. In practice, as you will be see, it will far less than this. In other words, it sounds like there is equal opportunity for secular and religious workers when, in fact, there isn’t. It’s spin to satisfy the secular lobby with a nudge and a wink to the Christian lobby.
5. Before Garrett opened applications for secular workers he had already invited schools to ‘roll over’ funding to retain their religious chaplains – ensuring that most schools would have applied to keep their chaplains before they realised they could apply for a secular welfare worker. But ….
6. … just to complete the ‘con job’, secular welfare workers can only be employed through an approved supplier. Currently there are no approved suppliers of secular welfare workers. But, never fear, there are plenty of applicants to do this. Given the rush of applications it now looks certain that those supplying ‘secular’ welfare workers will be …. Christian provider organisations. A double whammy.
7. But let’s play Garrett’s grubby game for a moment and imagine there will be secular workers. What will their guidelines be? Obviously they can’t be asked to offer ‘pastoral care’ and religious guidance – can they? Apparently, yes. In Garrett’s ‘new guidelines’ chaplains and student welfare workers share exactly the same code of conduct. There is no separation between the roles at all. The new guidelines simply replace the word ‘religious’ with ‘spiritual’. The word ‘spiritual’ is used 26 times in the new guidelines – the word ‘secular’ appears only five times.
8. The new guidelines enable both chaplains and secular welfare workers to: help students explore their spirituality, provide services with a spiritual content including discussion groups and lunch-time clubs, and (with prior approval) deliver activities and services that offer a particular view or religious belief and perform religious services and rites including worship and prayer during school assembly etc. Yes – whether religious or secular, the new guidelines allow chaplains and ‘secular’ welfare workers to evangelise and proselytise providing they have approval from the principal.
9. Under the ‘old’ guidelines, schools at least had to pretend they had undertaken community consultation. Under the new guidelines the minimum ‘community consultation’ is simply ‘minuted approval by the P&C executive plus one ordinary member’. We often find P&C’s have been ‘colonised’ by evangelical Christians. This means the wider parent community doesn’t even have to be consulted about having a religious chaplain in the school.
So there you go, secular and non-Christian parents. Peter Garrett and Julia Gillard have pulled a huge swifty on the lot of you. The NSCP has been made to ‘look’ secular when in fact it is just as religious as before – if not more so. It’s all ‘smoke and mirrors’. Julia Gillard can go to the Australian Christian Lobby and say (behind closed doors of course), “Nothing has really changed,” – and she’ll be right.
This is political chicanery at its very finest.
And if you think this is all horribly grubby and underhanded, and you’re embarrassed because the Prime Minister is an atheist – never fear; remember, she assured Jim Wallace and the Australian Christian Lobby her values come from her Baptist upbringing.
Chrys Stevenson
Not happy? Contact Julia Gillard or Peter Garrett.
In late October 2011, Queensland Treasurer, Andrew Fraser announced his plan to introduce a Civil Partnerships Bill to the Queensland Parliament before Christmas. Since then, my friend Phil Browne and his colleagues have been actively involved in lobbying in support of the bill, and monitoring reaction to it.
It’s been an emotional experience for Phil and I hope you will be as moved (and incensed!) as I was by his very personal account from the ‘campaign trail’. What follows is a longer version of an article that will appear in the December edition of Queensland Pride.
If you are moved by the words of my guest blogger, please, take an extra moment to take some of the steps he suggests at the end of this post. Marriage equality is fast gaining momentum – the only thing that stands in our way is apathy.
Browned off by bigotry: a campaigner’s insight into the Queensland Civil Partnerships Bill
by guest blogger, Phil Browne
Queensland’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual) community has been buzzing since Queensland MP, Andrew Fraser, surprised us all by announcing his intention to introduce a Civil Partnerships Bill to the Queensland Parliament. Like many other Queenslanders, both gay and straight, I don’t care about the timing of the Bill or even if it’s a political stunt. Improving our rights late, is better than not at all.
I was among the dozens of marriage equality supporters who packed into the public gallery of Parliament House on 25 October 2011 to hear Andrew Fraser explain his proposal. I was both moved and elated when his presentation drew a spontaneous burst of applause from the public gallery. My optimism grew as the Premier spoke very strongly in support of civil unions. It was exciting to be amongst such positive energy at Parliament House.
Next, the Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Committee for their scrutiny. As part of this process, submissions were called for and public hearings scheduled. The committee is due to return their recommendations to Parliament by 21 November. Full content should be made available on here.
A return trip to Parliament the following week provided a sad reality check. LNP and independent MPs attacked the Bill with relentless vigour. It was very obvious they wanted to kill this Bill and keep us as second class citizens. With the Opposition and independents yelling their arguments and snide put downs (presumably based on homophobia and/or ignorance) coming thick and fast it was impossible not to take their opposition as a personal attack. These MPs didn’t even know me, yet here they were yelling out reasons to deny me justice. I wanted to respond to their pathetic reasoning, but we’d been warned that any calling out or even touching the gallery handrail could see us ejected. As a homosexual, you half expect this sort of abuse in the streets, but not in the place where laws are made – supposedly to protect people.
As Andrew Fraser explained, civil unions are inferior to marriage but it’s the best a state government can do. Only the Federal Government has the power to legalise same-sex marriage. So what are some MPs opposed to? Why not allow Queensland to follow Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and the ACT who already have civil unions? It certainly looks to me like they want to prevent treating queers as equal and will do anything to achieve this.
I tweeted:
“@AndrewFraserMP Great responses to the LNP Kawana MP at Parl today “mate” Shameful LNP opposing equality. Thank you for doing right thing.”
(My reference to “mate” related to Andrew Fraser addressing a fellow MP as “mate”, rather than “the honourable member”, to indicate that the MP was being totally unreasonable in his objections to the Bill. Well done Mr Deputy Premier!)
A particularly nasty insinuation was that the Civil Partnerships Bill should be dismissed because it did not enjoy wide community support. We knew this was untrue, but Independent MP Chris Foley gloated that, on the day submissions were to close, of more than 300 submissions received, only nine supported the Bill. My fellow advocates and I were totally stunned to hear this. The four of us had each lodged a submission; could there really only be five other people in the entire state who had bothered to put their support for the Bill in writing? This was hard to believe, but it sent us into immediate action mode. I sent out a bulk e-mail and urged my social networks to get writing.
On Facebook and Twitter I wrote:
“ONLY 9 SUBMISSIONS FOR #QldCivilUnions 292 AGAINST Say you want Civil Unions BEFORE 5PM TODAY e-mail to lapcsesc@parliament.qld.gov.au RT”
“URGENT ACTION CALL: MAKE A SUBMISSION TO QLD LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BY 5PM TODAY http://fb.me/1jUUxu1tr “.
It was incredibly frustrating. We knew most Queenslanders were behind us, we just had to motivate the masses to make their feelings known.
As with the recent Rip & Roll debacle where the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) orchestrated a campaign to remove tasteful and discrete safe sex posters from bus shelters, our social media networks were invaluable for spreading the word and getting people to take action. We imagined how the ACL would now be lobbying their members and church groups to make submissions opposing civil unions. But each time they oppose us, we become better organized and our networks grow. Now, instead of contacting the company Adshel, we were rallying the troops to make last minute submissions. Interesting how the Australian Christian Lobby group has been involved in both these cases.
Our next task was to challenge LNP Leader Campbell Newman. Despite previously stating his support for same-sex marriage, Newman announced that, not only would he continue the LNP’s long-standing opposition to marriage equality, he would deny LNP MPs a conscience vote.
I tweeted:
“Attending Campbell Newman “Listening post” TODAY 12:00-12:45 Seils Park Toomba Ave Ashgrove to ask why not allow Civil Union conscience vote”
Numerous equality advocates questioned Mr Newman in his Ashgrove electorate, but he was adamant his decision would stand. At least I heard it direct from his own mouth. When I vote I will remember how Newman set aside his personal convictions on justice and equality for no better reason than to score political points. It was a truly appalling display of political amorality.
The following week brought another return visit to Parliament House for a full day of public hearings by the Parliamentary Committee. Twenty-one different groups were invited to share their views about the Bill directly with the committee comprising six MPs (ALP, Independent and LNP).
The eleven groups invited to speak against civil unions were all church or “family” organisations. I’m a strong person, but I was fearful of what toxic hateful comments I might hear coming from these groups, and how I might react to them. Walking to Parliament House I saw a lesbian couple walking hand in hand, and I took this to be an omen that all would be okay. If there was any justice in the world, love would prevail.
Waiting for entry to the Parliamentary Annexe a crowd was gathering for the day’s proceedings. It was very haunting looking around the crowd at people you did not know. Were they friend or foe? It was hard to tell which side people were on. Who would soon stand up and spew filthy hate from their mouth, and who would speak of love and acceptance? All this was unknown. I acknowledged an elderly woman – could she be a grandparent here to support her gay grandchild, or someone with a narrow closed mind convinced that gays were inferior? I soon learnt she was the latter.
Upon entering the large room where the public hearing was being held, I saw rows of chairs with an aisle down the middle. For the first time it struck me, “Where does everyone sit?” Is there one side for supporters and one for opponents? It was hauntingly like attending a wedding and determining which side to sit on depending if you knew the bride or groom. I almost laughed out loud with the irony of the situation. Here I was fighting for the right of same sex couples (in addition to opposite sex couples) to have legal and social recognition of their love. I was here because I wanted, one day, to see rows of seats for bride and bride and groom and groom, and here I was deciding whether to sit on the bride’s side or the groom’s! To this day I find this rather hilarious. As people who live our whole lives with discrimination, we learn to make light of things that may otherwise upset us, though yes – it still hurts.
The public hearing began with those arguing against civil unions and Wendy Francis from the Australian Christian Lobby was first to speak. Speaker after speaker spoke of the “harm” granting civil unions would do, especially to the “children” and the “family”. It was getting very monotonous and I was wondering when they were going to say it would fade the curtains too! One “family” organisation representative compared us to nuts and bolts, saying a nut and a bolt “marry”, but two nuts or two bolts “are not biologically complementary”.
Another presented each committee member with a photo of a 2.25 metre high basalt sculpture from the 19th century BC – the Amorite dynasty. It contained the Code of Hammurabi which was 282 ancient “laws” written in cuneiform, the script of the Babylonians. Apart from thinking can someone tell this man it’s 2011 not the 19th Century BC, the statue was extremely phallic looking. Like many others, including the committee I suspect, I was left scratching my head and thinking, “When are you going to present your “real” argument?” If it wasn’t November, you could have thought it was April Fools’ Day.
Some speakers seemed not to comprehend the Bill would also allow heterosexual couples to enter civil unions. Instead they spoke only of the harm that would ensue if homosexual couples are granted this right. Even when MPs responded that civil unions will provide immediate legal protection to the children of heterosexual parents (who, otherwise, may have to wait for up to two years for recognition of their defacto status), the speakers remained opposed.
But there were some light moments. When the opponents were making their case, the committee’s raised eyebrows and shaking heads (and even laughter once when threesomes and foursomes were suggested) spoke volumes. It did occur to me (and perhaps to the committee) that these conservative Christians seem to have kinkier sex fantasies than us!
Attending the parliamentary hearing had an added bonus; by the end of the session I had composed a list of churches never to send a gay person to, for fear of them being cajoled into an ex-gay program!
Something that shocked me was that some of these opponents with such distorted views were younger people. Curiously, I was also surprised that some were so good looking – Wendy Francis, for example, is a surprisingly attractive woman, and a couple of the nice reverends would certainly turn heads in a gay bar. I guess I had this perception they would all be old and ugly, like their out-dated and ugly prejudices. Perhaps I was expecting a room full of Fred Niles and Jim Wallaces.
I was also shocked to hear representatives of so many supposedly “loving” churches make the wildly outrageous (and completely unsubstantiated) claim that civil unions will cause “social breakdown”, “family breakdown” and “breakdown the social fabric”. Silly me! I thought religion was about love, acceptance, and not judging others. It sure seems like a truck-load of judging going on here.
The tragic thing is that ignorant people with attitudes like this, many of whom are pastors and ministers, are spreading hate and using religion as an excuse. These attitudes inevitably contribute to LGBT youth suicide as people are told they are inferior and evil, and won’t get to heaven, leading many to feel they have no place in society. Sadly, they are also contributing to full waiting rooms at psychologists across the world. The human toll is immeasurable.
I was pleased to see MPs interject numerous times to correct speakers or challenge outlandish claims unsupported by evidence:
Numerous times MPs commented that speakers were arguing against same sex marriage, yet the Bill is not about marriage, and marriage is different to civil unions.
When a reverend raised threesomes and foursomes, ALP MP Grace Grace responded “Are you advocating that way?”
In response to a speaker saying that, granting civil unions was like changing the rules of a sport “for the sake of some who did not want to play the game in the particular way it was designed”, ALP MP Carolyn Male pointed out that the game of cricket and various football games have all undergone rule changes.
John-Paul Langbroek MP said, “Reverend Twinn, you say in your submission, ‘Other nations that have deviated from this bedrock definition have paid a heavy cost.’ Could you outline for the committee what cost they have paid?” “Do you have any empirical evidence?” It was great to see this being challenged, but my elation was quickly deflated by the realisation that, being from the LNP, Langbroek is bound to vote against this Bill – even if the reasons for doing so make no sense.
Everything said on the day can be read on the Hansard transcript here.
Some organisations seem to think that adding the word “family” to their name, gives them the authority to hate and judge others. As the opponents to the Bill concluded their arguments, I was left with the impression that the word ‘family’ had been hijacked. To these critics, a ‘family’ is an exclusive club owned by heterosexuals. As the self-appointed moral guardians of this club, they claim their right to determine who can join and what filthy riff-raff has to be kept out. We homosexuals, it seems, are the filthy riff-raff – and that’s on a good day!
I tweeted:
“#QldCivilUnions Public Hearing: Christian haters shoot self in foot. MP’s raise eyebrows & shake heads in response to outrageous statements.”
Finally, we heard from the ten groups supporting the Bill. These included numerous church groups, PFLAG, Australian Marriage Equality, Healthy Communities, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, the Anti-Discrimination Commission and the Queensland Law Society.
I noticed that when real stories were told the committee concentrated and listened intently. As speaker after speaker stated the case for passing the Bill, I saw no negative facial expressions at all from the committee members. It was a refreshing change to finally hear the word ‘family’ connected with “love” – something curiously absent from the presentations of those who claimed to speak in support of traditional ‘Christian’ values. The word love was mentioned repeatedly in the afternoon session and I was revelling in it. Finally this is what it’s all about … LOVE. Why can’t everyone see that? It’s so logical.
Stories were told of awful discrimination against same sex couples without legal recognition and protection offered by civil unions. With my health care background I, too, had seen cases where a family who rejected a child decades ago for being being gay, suddenly appear at their child’s death bed, claiming next of kin rights, and legally ordering that the same sex partner of 30 years be excluded from seeing their partner in love and life. One such tragic story told to the committee gave me goosebumps. This evil discrimination must stop now.
By the end of the day I felt confident the committee could see through the false and unjustified arguments against civil unions and would recommend to Parliament that the Bill should proceed.
It’s been a roller-coaster ride and it’s impossible to remain emotionally detached. It’s demeaning to have perfect strangers brawling over whether you should have the same rights as other Australians. Seeing this in Parliament is challenging because you are not allowed to respond.
The battle will not be won until MPs debate and then vote on the Bill. This is likely to take place between 29 November and 1 December (with a high probability it will be the evening of Wed 30 Nov) and we have lots of work to do before then. Campaigners against the Bill, who sadly are much more militant lobbyists than us, are flooding MPs with demands they vote against it. It’s essential that our supporters – both gay and straight – make the effort to tell their MPs to vote for the Bill.
If this historic Bill is to pass, we really need to engage our real-life and online networks and encourage as many Queenslanders as possible to contact their local State MP in support of Andrew Fraser’s Civil Partnerships Bill.Please do this before 29 November.
We know some LNP MPs would like to vote for the Bill, but their Leader Campbell Newman will not allow them to vote for what is right and just – despite Mr Newman saying he supports same sex marriage – go figure! With enough pressure, some of these supportive LNP MPs may be “sick” on the day of the vote. This would mean they are not present and cannot vote against the Bill. Similarly some ALP MPs have said they will vote against the Bill, and with enough pressure, some of them may be persuaded, instead, to support the Bill.
So YES, your say can make a difference.
I’m so disappointed that I will be in Sydney when the bill is likely to be debated and voted on. For those of you present in the public gallery when it passes – PLEASE STAND UP AND SCREAM YOUR TITS OFF FOR ME. Scream for me, scream for you, scream for justice, scream for all Queenslanders who will benefit from this Bill.
Phil Browne
Take Action Now!
To Support Civil Partnerships in Queensland
All Queenslanders, please contact your local MP.
How do you do this?
STEP 1 – Click here.
Type in your address.
This will tell you the name of your electorate.
STEP 2 – Click here.
On the right, half way down, you will see “FIND A MEMBER”
Beneath that go to “Electorate name” and click the drop down menu.
When you see your electorate name, click it to see your MP’s contact details.
To support the legalisation of Same Sex Marriage by the Federal government:
Why is Fraser only asking for civil partnerships, not same-sex marriage?
Marriage equality advocates are generally opposed to the FEDERAL government
granting civil unions, as the FEDERAL government has the power to grant us full
marriage and anything less is second rate.
However, the STATE governments don’t have the power to introduce marriage at
STATE level, so this is the best the STATES can do – plus it puts more pressure on
the Federal government to act. Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and NSW already have
civil unions.
The differences between marriage and civil unions are explained here.
You can remain informed by following the Australian Marriage Equality lobby group. Join their e-mail list here , friend them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter @AMEQUALITY
Queensland Pride
Queensland Pride will be keeping a close eye on the passage of this Bill. You can sign up for updates from Queensland Pride on their website. Phil’s article, above, is a longer version of an article to be published in Queensland Pride’s December edition.
Anyone who supports marriage equality and gay rights (gay or straight) might also consider joining the Facebook group, Straights with Mates. “Nearly everyone knows and loves someone who is gay. This group has no religious or preferential axe to grind. It is simply about loving and accepting our gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, queer and intersex friends, family and associates … and all those different to ourselves. And acknowledging that because we care, their fight for equality is our fight too. LGBTQI friends are very welcome here, too, of course 🙂 “
Gillard's 1984 student election commitment to support homosexual rights
Update Saturday, 3 December 2011: The ALP has just voted to change the party’s platform on same-sex marriage while simultaneously guaranteeing that nothing will change. Julia Gillard has shown what kind of a Prime Minister she is. She is a Prime Minister who will trade her conscience for political expediency. She is a Prime Minister who will sell out equality for back room deals with political power brokers like Joe de Bruyn and Don Farrell. The ALP has shown it is rotten to the core – it stands for nothing. It is a party of the past with no forseeable future. Julia Gillard has etched her place in history and history will judge her.
———————-
This piece written 15 November 2011:
I have just sent the following email to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Ms Gillard,
The searing hypocrisy of a female PM, living in a defacto relationship at The Lodge arguing against same-sex marriage on the basis of preserving tradition is nothing short of appalling.
You deny same-sex couples the right to full equality because you believe in ‘tradition’ while happily taking full advantage of the fact that being a woman in a non-traditional role and non-traditional partnership is now socially acceptable.
Why is it socially acceptable for you to be the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard? Because thousands of brave people fought long and hard to break down ‘traditions’ which institutionalised inequality and injustice. Why are you able to hold the highest office in the land while ‘living in sin’? Because the tradition that would once have branded you a ‘scarlet woman’ has long since been overturned. This was the same tradition that kept Henry Parkes’ second wife – a woman who had once been his mistress – ostracized from polite society even after their marriage. Do you advocate that this ‘tradition’ should have been maintained?
Your hypocrisy is a betrayal of all that is right and fair. Your rejection of same-sex marriage is a betrayal of the 71 per cent of ALP voters who want your party to approve marriage equality.
As a student of history I am well aware of the Labor split in the 50s that confined Labor to opposition for decades. As a woman I am embarrassed that the person who is similarly destroying her party by artlessly mixing religion and politics is our first female (and atheist!) Prime Minister.
If you want to stand up for traditional values, Prime Minister, stand up for the traditional Labor values of equity and fairness. You think you might lose the conservative Christian vote if you support same-sex marriage? Just wait until the next election when ALP voters, abandoned by your party, vote with their feet. The swing to the Greens at the last election was just the beginnning. Perhaps you should consider another traditional Australian value you have cheerfully cast adrift – a fair go for all.
Change your mind, Prime Minister. You will lose far more if you don’t – your position, the government and the respect of the Australian people. Will you go down in history as the Prime Minister who had the chance to make a momentous change for equality and squibbed out of misplaced political pragmatism?
Your predecessor, Kevin Rudd did a lot wrong, but he will go down in history as the PM who said “Sorry” to the stolen generation. What will you go down in history for, Ms Gillard?
My interest was piqued yesterday by a Twitter exchange between bioethicist Leslie Cannold and sceptic, Ken Dally (aka Cowcakes).
Leslie Cannold: Vic Doctors who will let u or a woman u love die rather than follow law & offer life-saving abortion http://t.co/9NeIqfrl
Cowcakes: @LeslieCannold: So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much. http://t.co/YFkP0bRV
The website they refer to is Liberty of Conscience in Medicine – A Declaration; effectively a petition asserting the right of doctors to refuse to offer certain treatments (e.g. abortion, euthanasia) even if they are legal.
Now, I’m happy to concede there are compelling arguments both for and against this proposition (do you really want a rabidly anti-abortion doctor performing your abortion?), but this is not the issue that particularly concerns me about the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration.
Rather, it is the matter alluded to in Ken Dally’s tweet:
“So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much.”
I’ve been doing quite a bit of research on the anti-euthanasia lobby lately and I’ve been surprised to find that many organisations that declare themselves to be ‘secular’ or ‘non religious’ are clearly ‘playing possum’. It seems to me a rather ‘un-Christian’ thing to do, really.
Take the Discovery Institute, for example. Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, its activities, sponsors and target audience are explicitly Christian. Americans United for Separation of Church and State believes, “the group’s real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers.”
The judge in the 2005 “Dover Trial”, agreed, noting that a close examination of the Discovery Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document” revealed the Institute’s religious (as opposed to scientific) goals.
So, I wondered, could the Liberty of Conscience declaration be another of these religious ‘sleeper’ organisations? I decided to find out.
The FAQ section of the Liberty in Conscience website specifically states that the declaration is not connected with religion or religious beliefs:
“There is no religious or faith component to the declaration of conscience in medicine.”
The ‘sponsoring organisation’ , Medicine with Morality is “also not religious”.
So who is behind this secular push for doctors to be able to refuse those treatments which are so often the concern of the religiously motivated? The FAQ’s provide the answer:
“Lachlan Dunjey, a GP in Perth Western Australia since 1968, known to be passionate about such things – passionate about medicine, passionate about the future of medicine and wanting to protect the “traditional” doctor/patient relationship from the things that are threatening it.”
Strangely, it doesn’t mention that Lachlan Dunjey was Western Australia’s Christian Democratic Party candidate for the senate in 2004, along with co-signatory Dr Norman Gage. At a safe distance from his ‘secular’ websites, Dunjey describes himself as ‘a church musician of 40+ years, as a doctor, and as a church elder’ and signs off as: Lachlan Dunjey, Morley Baptist Church, West Australia. In fact, Dr Dunjey is not just an ordinary Baptist church-goer, he is a former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia. But, of course, in his capacity as an anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia campaigner, he is entirely non-religious!
My suspicions aroused, I wondered whether, as implied in the FAQs, the doctors who signed off on Dunjey’s ‘secular’ declaration were similarly ‘non-religious’. With a few hours to spare I decided to do some judicious googling of the signatories.
It didn’t take long to find that signatory, Dr Michael Shanahan has served as both president and secretary of the Catholic Doctors Association of Western Australia. Similarly, Dr Terrence Kent is a former president of the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke and Dr Elvis Seman appears to be a member.
“As Catholic doctors, we should be foremost inviting Christ into our work, which completely changes the nature of what you are doing.”
No doubt.
Another signatory, Dr Jovina Graham, was involved in planning iWitness, a religious retreat designed to ‘recapture the spirit’ of Catholic World Youth Day. The focus of iWitness was “on enriching the participants’ spiritual lives through a deepened relationship with Our Lord.”
As I kept researching the Catholic connections just kept on coming. Signatory, Dr Mary Walsh, is married to Catholic “knight” and bio-ethicist, Nicholas Tonti Fillipini. Dr Phillip Elias is assistant dean at the Opus Dei affiliated Warrane College at the University of New South Wales, while Dr Albert Matti is involved with the Melkite Catholic Eparchy in South Australia.
Liberty of Conscience supporter, Dr Alan Donoghue lays out his beliefs in The Dominion Post , intoning that the Catholic Church condones neither sex before marriage, nor divorce. And, of course, you must raise your children as Catholics!
Dr Graeme Cumming, who is oft seen commenting on Bill Muehlenberg’s blog, was a Family First candidate for the Queensland seat of Fisher in the 2007 federal election.
“Christians”, says Dr Cumming, “do have and must take up the responsibility (not the “right”) to proclaim God’s law”. Yes, Dr Cumming, but it would be nice if you’d specify when you’re speaking from a religious, rather than a scientific perspective.
Dr Lucas (Luke) McLindon also seems to be a Muehlenberg fan, pointing out in one comment that, “As a committed Catholic, at the end of the day, my loyalties must lie with Scripture first and foremost …” I’m sorry, Dr McLindon, but as a patient I’d rather hope your loyalty was first and foremost to me.
But, if the Liberty of Conscience declaration isn’t quite as ‘secular’ as the FAQs suggest, it is certainly ecumenical. Dr Thalia Shuttleworth is a facilitator at the Sydney Life Church and, apparently, participates in ‘miracle’ healing sessions.(I wonder if that’s covered by Medicare?)
Dr Robert Pollnitz is the chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia Commission on Social & Bioethcial Questions – not too sure how he would feel about ‘miracles and wonders’.
Dr Rosemary Wong, says her mission as an executive member of the Church of Christ’s Counsel@CrossCulture “is to bring Christ’s healing to the wounded in our families and communities, so that they may become the persons God has created them to be”. Pity if you really just wanted a few stitches.
Dr Graham Toohill, an Anglican from Gippsland, is a ‘vocational deacon’, apparently ‘chosen by God’ for a lifetime of service. Dr Toohill “offers time each week to the parish in pastoral care and outreach.”
Dr Robert Claxton is a Sydney Anglican who worked as a medical missionary in Uganda. He is a board member of African Enterprise a Christian Mission ministry committed to evangelising the cities of Africa (apparently whether they like it or not).
Another signatory with missionary credentials is Dr Richard Shawyer a ‘church planter’ who served as a Bible teaching missionary in Senegal with Worldwide Evangelisation for Christ. Similarly committed to mission work is Dr Rebecca Zachariah who worked with Lutheran Aid to Medicine in Bangladesh.
As my eyes grew dim and the night grew cold, I read that signatory, Dr Jeremy Beckett, is “avidly involved in student ministry with Christian medical and dental students in Perth” and, like Dr Margaret Payne , he works with the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia. Jeremy’s speciality is the “interface between Christian faith and clinical practice”. His aim; to minister the love of Christ to broken people. Ah yes, the broken – so delightfully vulnerable.
Dr Beckett probably knows Dr Sally Tsang. Also a member of the CMDFA, Dr Tsang runs Hospital Link which helps to “connect you to fellow believers for refreshing fellowship and prayer right where the mission field (and stress) is!” I wonder how many patients at Dr Tsang’s hospital realise they’ve been admitted to a ‘mission field’?
Another CMDFA signatory is Dr Natasha Yates. In her student days, Dr Yates acted as the medical student bible study leader at ANU.
And where was declaration signatory, Dr Tyler Schofield on Sunday, 9 October 2011? I found him asking the congregation of the Alice Springs Baptist Church to turn to their Bibles for a reading from Revelations. Perhaps he should confer with Dr Nell Muirden who’s been involved writing Bible Studies for the Assembly of Confessing Congregations – a group of Uniting Church dissenters. Or maybe a chat with Dr Andrew Bradbeer who I found busily memorising the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.
Dr Bradbeer might find he has a lot in common with Dr Mathew Piercy who has written for Creation Ministries on the subject “Life is a gift from God”. Isn’t this turning out to be a lovely little coterie of like-minded doctors?
And, as the night turned to morning, and my googling fingers continued their work, more and more came to light. Dr Gabriel James aims to “serve God” by facilitating the 40 Days for Life vigil at Westmead Hospital – all welcome providing they “conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner”.
If that all sounds too ‘kumbaya’ for you, try signatory Dr Arthur Hartwig for a little ‘old school’ religion. In the fundamentalist Christian Saltshakers magazine, Dr Hartwig complains that “Sin has been sanitised, euphemised, relativised, trivialised, corporatised, minimised, even decriminalised.” Ah, bring back those good old days when we stoned homosexuals, eh, Dr Hartwig?
Dr. Theresa Ong has a Grad Dip in Christian Counselling. Dr Nathan Grills has written about the ‘faith effect’ in treating HIV/AIDs and …. well, I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
In all I found nearly 70 of the doctors who signed the Liberty of Conscience declaration had clear links to Christian organisations. Of course, not everyone has their religious credentials plastered on the internet for all to see – I was never going to ‘unmask’ everyone. But, even though it might be argued I didn’t find Christian credentials for nearly half the signatories, I challenge those who have no religious affiliation or belief to step forward and declare themselves. I don’t think I’ll be deafened by the response!
Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m avowedly and publicly an atheist. But, I have a very strong ethical code and an incredible aversion to lying and deception. If an organisation tells me they’re ‘not religious’ I expect when I look at its members I will find a pretty good sprinkling of them who are ‘not religious’. I would also expect that religious dogma is not the driving force and influence underpinning the mission (pun intended) of the group in question.
I may not agree with them, but I have no objection to Christians stating their arguments in the public square. I do object, however, when their religious bias is not declared. No politician is going to spend the hours I spent last night googling the credentials of these doctors on a site which explicitly states it has ‘no religious or faith component’. And politicians should know whether the views being put to them are coloured by a hidden religious agenda.
The water of the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration is so muddied with religious belief you could walk on it. And, it seems, there is such an intermingling of these avowedly Christian and avowedly secular ‘pro-life’ and lobbying organisations they even get muddled themselves! Take this telling exchange from the Review of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 [document file]:
DrChrisFRENCH — Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to address you regarding our concerns. We have Doctors in Conscience here but the actual proposal was from the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria, so I will speak on behalf of Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria in this submission. That was Eamonn’s original proposal.
… The Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria gives its total and complete support for the measures to strengthen and clarify human rights. This is a major purpose of this association, linked as it is with a long tradition of preferential care for the disadvantaged of Catholic‑inspired organisations. The association and I personally give full and total support to the sentiments expressed in the preamble of the charter.
TheCHAIR — Dr French, I do not mean to interrupt you but the committee was of the understanding that you were representing Doctors in Conscience.
DrFRENCH — Yes, I must say it did occur to me as I was walking in the front door that the address to Eamonn was Doctors in Conscience. I had understood that this was the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria. Do you have that in front of you?
TheCHAIR — The submission we have is from Dr Eamonn Mathieson.
MsCAMPBELL — Who is speaking to Eamonn Mathieson’s submission?
DrFRENCH — I was going to speak to Eamonn’s submission. May I to see your copy?
MsCAMPBELL — Because Doctors in Conscience is definitely not a Catholic organisation.
DrFRENCH — Yes, indeed. That’s fine — —
MsCAMPBELL — It has Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and non‑religious people involved in it, and that was who we invited.
DrFRENCH— Okay. In that case — —
MsCAMPBELL — So we need someone who can speak on Doctors in Conscience.
DrFRENCH — I can briefly speak on behalf of them. I am a member of that group and I have been working to this particular document so I am prepared. I can speak on behalf of it.
MsCAMPBELL — But you are also a member of Catholic doctors of Victoria?
DrFRENCH — Yes, I am, as it happens. So I can speak on behalf of Doctors in Conscience. I am a member of both organisations and I have actually prepared my proposal based on this document that has been given to you.
TheCHAIR — On the submission of Doctors in Conscience?
DrFRENCH — Yes.
TheCHAIR — Okay. And the opening remarks you were making are consistent with the submission of Doctors in Conscience?
DrFRENCH — Yes.
Oh dear! It’s so hard when you simply can’t remember whether to wear your Catholic camauro or your secular slouch hat when fronting up to these inquiries!
If Christians want to have their voices respected in the public square it’s time to stop these ridiculous games of religious hide ‘n seek. If your views are based on your religious convictions, at least have the honesty and courage to say so. If you can support your religious convictions with reasonable secular argument based on evidence and good science, by all means do so. But, for Christ’s sake (literally) have the decency to make it clear that even if every bit of evidence supported the opposite view, you would still oppose the proposition purely on religious grounds. After all, you wouldn’t want us to think that Christians cynically conceal their dogmatic beliefs in secular clothing and try to pass them off as ‘science’. That wouldn’t be acting in good conscience at all, would it?
One of the highlights of Monday nights is watching ABC’s Q and A panel show ‘with my friends’. ‘With’ of course, is a relative term. They’re not ‘with’ me in the living room – but tweeting along on Twitter or commenting on the proceedings on Facebook.
On Monday, 19 September, an elderly man in the Q and A audience raised the subject of euthanasia. What followed was an extraordinary recital of urban legends, conjecture, misinformation and common gossip about what would happen (and what, allegedly, has happened) when voluntary euthanasia (VE) is legalised.
After the show, my friend Dr David Leaf contacted me on Facebook. As a highly experienced, primary care doctor who deals with life and death issues every day, and as a board member of Dying with Dignity NSW, David was furious. Frankly, I was rather ‘hot under the collar’ myself. These allegations had been aired and not one person had refuted them. They were now floating out there in television land as ‘facts about voluntary euthanasia’; ‘facts’ we both knew were patently false.
The conversation quickly turned to what should ‘we’ do about it?
(That’s what I love about my friends. They’re not the sort who say ‘someone should do something about that’, they’re the sort who say, ‘what can we do about it?’)
So, David and I decided to write an article correcting the claims made about VE on Q and A. Generously, Scott Stephens from the ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal agreed to publish it.
It’s been published tonight and David and I, now all fired up and excited about our new writing partnership, are already planning our next article.
“In a recent episode of ABC’s Q and A, disability rights activist, John Moxon, paints a frightening picture of societies in which voluntary euthanasia (VE) is legal.
Speaking from the audience, Moxon, a quadriplegic, warns that the VE legislation currently before the South Australian parliament:
“… will enable a doctor to kill somebody, on the judgement of the doctor alone, that the person’s life is not worth living.”
After the show, Moxon’s anti-euthanasia group, ProLiving, posted the following comment on their website:
“ProLiving supporter John Moxon gave a good account of a disability perspective on the issue of euthanasia in the ABC program Q & A on 19th September.”
This is alarming. If the ‘disability perspective’ on VE is based on the kind of information disseminated by Mr Moxon on Q and A, people with disabilities are being grossly misinformed. ” [Read more]
A blogger called Don Allan has decided to ‘take aim’ at same-sex marriage. I could have posted a comment on his blog, but this is likely to be long and I doubt he’d publish it anyway.
I thought it would be informative if Allan’s objections to same-sex marriage were reframed as a (circa 1960s) argument against inter-racial marriage. Let’s see how his argument stacks up in this context.
To clarify, I have used Allan’s anti same-sex marriage argument, but replaced ‘homophobic’ with ‘racist’, ‘same sex’ with ‘inter-racial’ etc. To be fair to Allan, who was arguing against same-sex marriage – not mixed race marriage – I have indicated my changes to his text in red:
“Without knowing anything about me some people call me racist because I oppose inter-racial marriage. … I am blind to people’s colour, ethnicity, and sexual make up. So as the name callers now have this information I invite them to create a new name for me.
But …. before they start creating a new name, let [me] advise them that I am agnostic and my opposition to inter-racial marriage is based on historical evidence that, even in pre Judeo Christian societies, marriages were seen as special contracts between people of the same race, that age and circumstance permitting, could create racially pure children. Because of their importance, society called them marriage contracts, a title still observed, even in the world’s least sophisticated societies. And so racially pure children are born.
However, children’ s real racial make up [does not become an issue] until later when sexual attraction[comes into play]. The result: humanity becomes a complicated mix of races. This mixture of races often causes complications in society for the individuals concerned and their families.
One such complication is that some, but not all, people of colour, claim they are being denied their human rights because American law says people of different races cannot marry.
I can only say I have never thought of “Marriage” as a human right although it has become a “rite.” Marriage for me has always been a contract that millenniums ago, came to be recognised as the title created by society for people of the same race joined in unions that would be responsible for racial regeneration.
Speaking as an individual, I believe all human beings are equal, but different – and not just racially. But believing all people are equal canot hide either the differences or the scientific fact that no laws can ever make non–whites genetically the same as white people. By the same token, it was society that created the title marriage, not a God of religion.
Sadly at times, the difference between the different races leads to discrimination that must be eradicated for the benefit of society. To do this I believe that education programmes that help teach people to be blind to the colour, ethnicity and sexual make up, should start as early in childhood as possible.
And also as a means of reducing discrimination, inter-racial couples wishing to contract with each other should rejoice and celebrate their difference with couples of the same race, rather than both groups engage in hostilities that are anything but a tribute to humanity …
[I have omitted the last couple of paragraphs because I could make no sense of them but you can read them here.]
I have used the following quote before, but it bears repeating when we get this kind of ‘I am not a racist’/ ‘I am not homophobic BUT …’ argument. It, too, comes from the 1960s when African Americans were fighting for civil rights in the same way homosexuals are fighting for equality today. Consider this cloying statement signed by eighty ministers from Arkanas explaining the Church’s opposition to integration:
“This statement is not made with any enmity or hatred in our hearts for the Negro race. We have an abiding love for all people . . . [But] [w]e believe that the best interests of all races are served by segregation …We resent the implication by certain liberal ministers that it is un-Christian to oppose integration. We believe that integration is contrary to the will of God … is based on a false theory of the ‘universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.’ We believe that integration is not only un-Christian, but that it violates all sound sociological principles and is not supported by Scripture or by biological facts.”
Does anyone truly believe, despite their earnest protestations to the contrary, those ministers were not hateful, narrow-minded, racist bigots?? Why, then, should we believe anything better of those who use exactly the same kinds of arguments to oppose same-sex marriage?
Allan’s argument simply makes no sense. There are many traditional practices that have changed over time as we have become better, more inclusive societies. There is no need for tradition to tie us to unjust laws once we have realised they do not serve the greater good or unnecessarily harm minorities.
Similarly, marriage has never been confined only to those who can have children – so it is disingenous to argue that homosexuals should not be able to marry because they cannot reproduce. Does Allan also suggest that someone who is infertile should only be allowed a ‘civil union’ and not a marriage?
Finally, Allan’s insistence that he is ‘blind’ to people’s colour, ethnicity or sexual ‘make up’ rings hollow when he uses the old segregationist canard, ‘equal but different’. Remember, that and ‘tradition’ are the same arguments the Catholic church uses to explain away their discrimination against ordaining women. Even most Catholic women don’t buy it as anything other than sexist, misogynistic crap.
Sorry Don, you may not like the epithet, but you have failed to convince me you aren’t just another homophobe hiding behind a rather large pile of paper-thin arguments.
A blogger called Don Allan has decided to
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 
