My Right Hand Vs My Right Leg: I will now attempt a two-step exercise. First, to compare my right hand with my right leg. Second, attempt to achieve equality between the two. I do so by writing down the differences between my right hand and my right leg in terms of distinctiveness, uniqueness, and purpose. I then to try to figure out how to achieve equality between the two, which is only truly possible by ignoring their distinctiveness, uniqueness, and purpose. Well, to cut a long story short, it turns out to be a futile exercise. I try to figure out why this exercise is both painstaking and futile. Here, the light comes on: first, although both my right hand and my right leg are parts of my body, yet comparing them was cumbersome and senseless because both of them are totally different from each other, in distinctiveness, uniqueness, and purpose. For example, while my right hand is situated at the upper part of my body in order to achieve its designed purpose, my right leg is located at the lower part of my body to fulfil its own purpose. A further attempt to bring them to equality becomes all the more foolish, senseless, and as it were, attempting an impossible task. Why is that? They are both fundamentally distinct, unique, and accomplish different purposes.
Marriage Vs Commitment: Drawing upon the fore-going analogy, let us now think soberly: Is there truly a fundamental basis to compare same-sex commitment with opposite-sex or traditional marriage? Well, you will find it so much easier to compare your right eye with your left eye, and your right ear with your left ear, because they are fundamentally the same. Hence, to compare your right eye with your left eye in terms of vision, you may perhaps find out that one of the two is 20% short-sighted or long-sighted. You may then take the next step of seeking medical help to achieve equality of vision or 20:20 vision.
Yes, it is so easy to compare and seek equality between two same-sex unions or between two married couples; but are there common grounds for measuring ‘equality’ between same-sex union and traditional marriage? Fundamentally speaking, there is absolutely none in view of their distinctiveness, uniqueness, and purpose. The reasons are not far-fetched. Firstly, same-sex union is simply what the term suggests, a union of same-sexes, and is based on ‘commitment’ and not on ‘marriage’. Whereas marriage, both by historical and legal definitions, as in Australia’s Marriage Amendment Act 2004, is a union between man and woman. Secondly, marriage is backed up by an Act of parliament (which makes it legal) while same-sex commitment has no Act to back it up in Australia as we speak. The battle to resolve this has been long drawn and a long time to go. Indeed, should we, for the sake of comparing both, dare to upgrade same-sex union to a common ground with traditional marriage and then call it ‘same-sex marriage’, we would instantly be in danger of an illegal act, in view of what is called marriage by the Australian Act. There can therefore be no talk of equality between same-sex and heterogeneous unions, or between what has no Act and what has an Act, under our present law. What then is the legality of the platform or of the constant use of the term ‘marriage equality’ which inherently compares two kinds of marriages and suggests there is inequality?
Attempt To Amend An Existing Law Unlawfully: To amend or change an existing law (the marriage Act 2004), we can only do so lawfully. This is a fundamental principal of law. I have argued that, the term ‘marriage equality’ presupposes the existence of two kinds of marriages under existing law. As stated, the problem with this approach is, we don’t have two kinds of marriages under Australian law at the moment, and the whole scam of marriage equality begins here. It then gets worse when it comes down to seeking equality between the two. Even within the LGBT community, there is nothing called marriage or marriage ceremonies, only what is called commitment and commitment ceremonies. If there is, it would be illegal. Yet, and regrettably so, we have lawmakers today who have been using an unlawful term and an illegal means, called marriage equality, to seek to change or redefine a lawful term, marriage, as defined in the Marriage Act.
In light of the foregoing and to state the obvious, the term ‘marriage equality’ is a political scam, in the very least. At best, it is a misnomer insofar as it seeks to compare and equalise two unions that are fundamentally opposite in their distinctiveness, uniqueness, and purpose. Consequently, we may now ask, where does that leave same-sex commitment? It leaves it right in the centre of a new same-sex commitment Act; a new Act of Parliament which I now propose in this debate. That is, a new Act for same-sex union without amending the marriage Acts of 1961 & 2004. Where does that leave ‘marriage equality’? Where else but in the garbage bin of political scams, socially manipulative tools, dishonestly crafted and mind-controlling games that have long exceeded their use-by date? All that the political tricksters who infiltrated and hijacked the same-sex movement wanted to do was use a legitimate need as a political tool. In this grand deception, there is a mutually beneficial outcome, in successfully mobilising a massive public opinion. Although, this is a temporary advantage immorally obtained, understanding how the crafty ideas behind the scheme emerged and work may be helpful in navigating the way forward. While this in itself is unclear, we can only dare to imagine. I therefore suggest that the scheme runs somewhat like this:
Same-sex community as a movement in its present intensity is new, and as with anything new, establishing credibility is its first task. As long as the older movement, heterogeneous marriage, exists as undiluted without a redefinition, protagonists feel that the same-sex movement will continue to be on a limp; a long, narrow road to freedom. Firstly, to ask for a same-sex Act in parity with the Marriage Act, although that is the sensible and right thing to do, puts the movement constantly on the back foot, always having to defend its ways in the face of traditional marriage. Why defend its position (to eventually have its own Act and freedom) when it can attack (the Marriage Act and actually share in it by its redefinition). In this way, it will not only gain the freedom, but also would have weakened and diluted traditional marriage forever. That’s the golden aim at stake. It’s not just about having its our own Act; that’s pretty easy. By the way, it already secured the Sex discrimination Act of 1984. Its real aim is to destroy its opponent, traditional marriage, by attacking its Act. Secondly and in view of the first point, it cannot use the need for its own Act as a winning strategy, given its minority position. It needs to get almost everybody on board and that only by blind-folding everybody. The drawing card is to use everybody’s common weakness in our modern world: human right and equal right for the minority and the weak. Although the movement is not into ‘marriage’ as such (infact, it repulses it, which is why it is its very opposite), nevertheless, it will use the term ‘marriage’ as though it likes it and ‘fakes it until it makes it’. So, it keeps the talking point going, it’s all about ‘marriage equality’ and nothing else. It keeps sounding it to a point where people cannot think anymore outside of the box or speak out to the contrary. If they do, it will be at the risk of being accused of discrimination, or of marginalising a minority group’s interest. It pushes people to the place where, all that people can think about and voice out (without examining the facts, which it deliberately submerges under the emotions of discrimination or marginalisation) is: “yes, if we on this side or those on that side have their right to marry, why not give ‘equal right’ (marriage equality) to same-sex unions?; hence, why not a Yes vote, and who can say No to egalitarianism publicly and be culturally acceptable?”. This narration portrays the figment of the imaginations that could have created such a deceptive scheme as ‘marriage equality’.
By the above-rehearsed ploy, the architects of ‘marriage equality’ got a sizable part of the media, politicians, and all those primarily concerned with cultural correctness, to get on the bandwagon. That seems to have worked out pretty well until now that facts leading to the truth must finally catch up with, and overtake, the deception and illegality of ‘marriage equality’.
“To Caesar What Belongs To Caesar And To God What Belongs To God”: Do we really have to amend or redefine Marriage, and by so doing, destroy the fundamental fabric of an ancient human law that marriage is between man and woman (a law used by both atheistic and religious societies throughout the ages)? The same-sex community already has a marriage equivalence called Commitment (vows/ceremonies). Why should we amend or redefine Marriage, when we can simply establish a new Act for same-sex union? Do we really have to change a law embedded in the natural conscience of humanity (and thankfully enshrined in the Australian Marriage Act 2004), just because some people don’t want to have their own ‘Italian donkey’ (a same-sex Commitment Act)?. They want your own ‘Italian donkey’ (split into two to accommodate them). They would rather have half of your old donkey than ride on their own new donkey. Wait a minute; there appears to be a sinister motive there and an evil intention to just murder your donkey. I will vote No.
Do we have to rob Peter to pay Paul, or put a new wine into an old wineskin? How about just pay Paul without robbing Peter, and get a new wineskin for a new wine? Build a same-sex Commitment Act without tearing down the traditional Marriage Act. How ‘fair dinkum’ enough would that be, if we have a new Commitment Act 2017 without amending Marriage Acts 1961 & 2004, and hence resolve the impasse once and for all? Yes, how about give “to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”?
A Different Name For A Different Act: Lest we forget; is the name or term ‘Marriage’ as is known between man and woman, still available on the shelve to be taken or shared by same-sex union? I suppose not. For, in the spirit and letter of existing laws (just as it is with any new registration of Business name), a simple name-search will reveal whether a name is already taken or can be used or shared. Obviously, the philosophy or fundamentals for these two institutions, same-sex and traditional marriage, are diametrically opposed to each other. They certainly cannot share the same name without future conflicts in law. The institution that has it registered first keeps the name. In 2004, ‘marriage’ was federally registered as the union of man and woman by an Act of Australian Parliament. Consequently, the proposed same-sex commitment Act may not, therefore, be legitimately termed a “Marriage Act”.
A New Same-Sex Commitment Act Is Called For: In conclusion, I strongly suggest that, the same-sex community is better off continuing with the choice of Commitment unions and Commitment Ceremonies. In this connection, Parliament is therefore to seek to establish a new Act, a same-sex Commitment Act. Likewise, heterogeneous communities are better off continuing with the choice for Civil or Religious Ceremonies (under the existing Marriage Act). Thus, no change, amendment, or redefinition of the Marriage Act is required, both now and hereafter on the grounds of a ‘marriage equality’.
McKeown, D. 2017. Chronology of Same-Sex Marriage Bills introduced into the Federal Parliament: A Quick Guide. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary _Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/ SSMarriageBills. Accessed 20/8/2017.
Marriage Amendment Act 2004. Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government. https://www.legislation.gov.au /Details
/C2004A01361. Accessed 21/8/2017.
Marriage Regulations 1963. SR 1963 No. 31. Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F1996B02001. Accessed 21/8/2017.
Marriage Act 1961. Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00164. Accessed 21/8/2017.
Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 (implied repealed). ACT legislation register. ACT Government, Canberra, Australia. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2013-39/. Accessed 21/8/2017.
Venn-Brown, Anthony. Submission to the Australian Government’s Senate Inquiry into Marriage Equality. http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=3ef14d26-5860-4b31-88f1-87808a720033. Accessed 21/8/2017.
©2017 Paul E. Momoh. Email firstname.lastname@example.org. Published by FReN-Australia. Paul E. Momoh is an ordained Minister of Religion, a Commonwealth of Australia Registered Religious/Christian Marriage Celebrant and the Host-Speaker of Life & Truth, a Marriage Education programme that utilizes Parables & Proverbs, Preventive & Renewal Education.