P
Petersmate
Guest
An open letter to the Liberal Party on same sex “marriage”.
I urge the Liberal Party to ensure that there is no conscience vote for its members on same-sex marriage and that, during its coming term in office, there are no votes on that subject at all.
The Liberal Party was traditionally supposed to provide voters with choice on social issues. Increasingly it no longer does that. The Liberal Party still has a substantial component of conservative supporters, however, who expect it to protect Australia from the ravages of the left-wing social agenda. These people are passionately opposed to the kind of social degeneration pushed on us by the left. The perception that the Liberal Party is more conservative is the core reason why these people support it.
It is also true that the Party contains a substantial element that advocates left-wing social change. That is not the core reason why these people are in the Party, however. If left-wing social change were their greatest passion, they would belong to the Greens or the ALP. These people are principally in the Liberal Party because of its greater economic responsibility. When the Liberal Party supports left-wing social change, it severely alienates its conservative supporters, while at the same time only meeting the secondary political objectives of its left wing. This is bad politics.
It does not really matter whether the Liberal Party votes as a bloc for same-sex marriage, or whether it simply allows a conscience vote that results in enough of its members joining with Labor to ensure that it passes. In either case the Party would have failed to fulfill what its conservative supporters regard as its core mission.
Secondly, the SSM supporters and their media allies seem to be following a model where they intend to call this on for vote after vote, and continue to harass their opponents and wear them down one by one until they get it passed, and then stop all further debate on the subject.
Opponents of same-sex marriage should not accept that model. We have got better things to do than engage in a continuous defence of marriage until the homosexual activists get their way. We need the Liberal Party help level up the playing field. A fair model for this debate is to say: “we had a vote on this, the SSM activists lost and the subject is now closed for the indefinite future”.
Homosexuals are getting a disproportionate amount of attention. There are far more serious issues that should be occupying the Parliament’s time; like reigning in the deficit, fixing the broken project approvals process, stemming unsafe boat people arrivals, etc, etc. That point needs to be made to media activists who continually agitate for “SSM”.
The national obsession that homosexuals have been able to create with their agenda is truly bizarre. It is testament to the left’s hijack of the language of human rights. (George Orwell tried to warn us about this.) The right actually has far better credentials on human rights on the left, with its relatively recent support for various murderous communist regimes. Yet now the left is largely unchallenged in pretending that every plank of its social agenda is a fundamental human right, whereas our social agenda involves the repression of rights. Liberals need to fight to regain control of the rights debate and use it against the left. Implementation of the homosexual agenda has lead to a swathe of repression of its opponents. People who do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle are being harassed, driven out of business, fired from jobs, sued and (in one case in Sweden) sentenced to jail) without any right of redress all over Europe and North America.
Those in the Liberal Party who are wavering on this issue should ask themselves the question: “Does the Party stand for fundamental social principles or is it just an echo of what the Labor Party believed a decade ago?”
There was a time in Australian politics when one could ridicule political figures on the left on the basis that they were “pro-homosexual”. This was, for example, one key feature of attacks on the Australian Union of Students. The homosexuals have not come up with any new arguments to support their position since the time when their agenda was completely unacceptable to the mainstream. All they have done is continuously bleat the same thing over and over again until, like a naughty kid having a tantrum, mum gives in to get them to shut up. If far-left social policy can become mainstream simply by shrill repetition then the Liberals need to have a serious look at their own effectiveness as a Party of the right.
Continued next post…
I urge the Liberal Party to ensure that there is no conscience vote for its members on same-sex marriage and that, during its coming term in office, there are no votes on that subject at all.
The Liberal Party was traditionally supposed to provide voters with choice on social issues. Increasingly it no longer does that. The Liberal Party still has a substantial component of conservative supporters, however, who expect it to protect Australia from the ravages of the left-wing social agenda. These people are passionately opposed to the kind of social degeneration pushed on us by the left. The perception that the Liberal Party is more conservative is the core reason why these people support it.
It is also true that the Party contains a substantial element that advocates left-wing social change. That is not the core reason why these people are in the Party, however. If left-wing social change were their greatest passion, they would belong to the Greens or the ALP. These people are principally in the Liberal Party because of its greater economic responsibility. When the Liberal Party supports left-wing social change, it severely alienates its conservative supporters, while at the same time only meeting the secondary political objectives of its left wing. This is bad politics.
It does not really matter whether the Liberal Party votes as a bloc for same-sex marriage, or whether it simply allows a conscience vote that results in enough of its members joining with Labor to ensure that it passes. In either case the Party would have failed to fulfill what its conservative supporters regard as its core mission.
Secondly, the SSM supporters and their media allies seem to be following a model where they intend to call this on for vote after vote, and continue to harass their opponents and wear them down one by one until they get it passed, and then stop all further debate on the subject.
Opponents of same-sex marriage should not accept that model. We have got better things to do than engage in a continuous defence of marriage until the homosexual activists get their way. We need the Liberal Party help level up the playing field. A fair model for this debate is to say: “we had a vote on this, the SSM activists lost and the subject is now closed for the indefinite future”.
Homosexuals are getting a disproportionate amount of attention. There are far more serious issues that should be occupying the Parliament’s time; like reigning in the deficit, fixing the broken project approvals process, stemming unsafe boat people arrivals, etc, etc. That point needs to be made to media activists who continually agitate for “SSM”.
The national obsession that homosexuals have been able to create with their agenda is truly bizarre. It is testament to the left’s hijack of the language of human rights. (George Orwell tried to warn us about this.) The right actually has far better credentials on human rights on the left, with its relatively recent support for various murderous communist regimes. Yet now the left is largely unchallenged in pretending that every plank of its social agenda is a fundamental human right, whereas our social agenda involves the repression of rights. Liberals need to fight to regain control of the rights debate and use it against the left. Implementation of the homosexual agenda has lead to a swathe of repression of its opponents. People who do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle are being harassed, driven out of business, fired from jobs, sued and (in one case in Sweden) sentenced to jail) without any right of redress all over Europe and North America.
Those in the Liberal Party who are wavering on this issue should ask themselves the question: “Does the Party stand for fundamental social principles or is it just an echo of what the Labor Party believed a decade ago?”
There was a time in Australian politics when one could ridicule political figures on the left on the basis that they were “pro-homosexual”. This was, for example, one key feature of attacks on the Australian Union of Students. The homosexuals have not come up with any new arguments to support their position since the time when their agenda was completely unacceptable to the mainstream. All they have done is continuously bleat the same thing over and over again until, like a naughty kid having a tantrum, mum gives in to get them to shut up. If far-left social policy can become mainstream simply by shrill repetition then the Liberals need to have a serious look at their own effectiveness as a Party of the right.
Continued next post…
