Is it just me or do you find this confusing too?
One of the leading bodies fighting for the legalisation of homosexual marriage was the body called Australian Marriage Equality. One of the things that apparently kicked off the homosexual marriage campaign was the amendment of the Marriage Act by the Howard government, supported by the Latham Labor opposition, that specified that marriage was between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
On 15 November 2017, Benedict Brook, at news.com.au, posted an article entitled Inside the Yes campaign: The strategy to deliver same sex marriage to Australia. It was posted on the final day for voting in the same sex marriage referendum. He interviewed Tiernan Brady, the head of the Equality Campaign, who told him that the No campaign was putting out misinformation, using that modern word that wasn’t used back then, but you’ll understand what I’m getting at better, raising, what he said were other consequences that would come from legalising same sex marriage and they weren’t talking about marriage itself – but that was the focus of the Yes campaign. But was the No campaign really trying to distract us or were they pointing us to the floodgates that have now very clearly been opened as a result of the successful Yes campaign.
In an article on the ABC News, entitled Howard Years to headbutts by Riley Stuart, posted on 16 November 2017, the day after the referendum, it perhaps unintentionally told a different story to the one that Tiernan Brady was telling.
I think most insightfully, or honestly, because the Yes vote had won when she was interviewed, Geraldine, elected as one of the inaugural co-convenors of the Australian Marriage Equality campaign, told Riley Stuart that:
It was always my view, and it was always Rodney's view, that if you go after marriage, you get everything else.
She wasn’t wrong. Gender fluidity, transexuals, gender change. Just think.
In this programme I’m continuing to look at Dr Schumm’s investigation into whether Dr Sarantakos’ findings about the consequences of homosexual marriage for children were scientifically correct. And when I look at what Dr Schumm found, I’m finding that what the homosexual community calls marriage is not the same thing that the heterosexual community calls marriage. Having read all of that, it seems to me that the referendum was like two ships passing in the night. What heterosexual people thought they were voting for wasn’t what they were voting for, while homosexual people got exactly what they wanted – everything. Tell me what you think after you’ve heard this programme?
Tag words: Tiernan Brady; Equality Campaign; Geraldine; Family Law Act; Associate Professor Sarantakos; Dr Walter Schumm; same-sex marriage; monogamy; polyamorous;