Every Muslim politician in Germany voted for ‘marriage equality’

Two days ago I revealed that the Islamic community was quietly being urged to vote ‘yes’ in the plebiscite to redefine marriage.

It might seem strange.

But it is actually logical.

The argument for ‘marriage equality’ has no logical basis for restricting this institution to just two people. In fact, homosexual ‘marriage equality’ will necessarily and inevitably morph into a battle for the recognition of multiple partners.

And this is why: biology.

A heterosexual couple only needs two people (a husband and wife) to become parents (the mother and father).

Homosexuals, regardless of how ‘equal’ things become, are simply unable to match this reproductive efficiency. They need a third person to assist in the process of creating a child.

Part of the argument for ‘marriage equality’ is the creation of legal certainty for homosexuals, and it is clear that ‘marriage equality’ for two cannot do this. One of the ‘parents’ is not recognised in the relationship.

As I said, it is inevitable that there will be a push for recognition of multiple partners in marriage.

And this is why the Islamic community, despite violent Koranic antipathy towards homosexuals, wants to see the plebiscite to redefine marriage succeed. They want legalised Sharia polygamy ‘marriage equality’ as well.

A ‘yes vote’ does not just open the door to recognition of multiple partners, it sets the Sharia train speeding from the station.

This train will become a wreck the Australian community does not need or want. But it will come hard and fast come if the plebiscite proceeds.

And if you find it hard to believe the Islamic community will be riding it for all its worth, just know this: Germany legalised ‘marriage equality’ six weeks ago.

Every Muslim politician in the German parliament voted for it.

Every. Single. One.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

11 Comments

  1. Many complain of the Howard 2004 ‘redefinition’ but ignore the fact that s43 of the Family Law Act 1975 was, some 29 years earlier, and still remains, equally emphatic as to what marriage and family meant and the State’s role in it, and what all courts are supposed to do!

    That the High Court of Australia missed this point is concerning, even though its own reference to the same act (s6) allowed the development of what may be referred to as the ‘uphill slippery slope’ doctrine.

    Neither the flexibility of our common law regime nor any real or imagined rigidity in the statutory framework should create judicial difficulty or incoherence when placing these side by side in a Constitutional context. Arguably, it unnecessarily has. Even though there is no common law approach for de facto relationships, State governments have delivered legislative regimes and these are now incorporated into our national family law.

    Between Constitutionality and Arbitrary Rule

    The jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia to perform any further function after answering the questions referred to it was clearly an interesting development in the HCA’s practice. No court should embark on the performance of any further function except on the express application of one of the parties and after giving an opportunity to be heard to the other parties.

    The convention of courts to not interfere with a long-standing decision where the legislature has chosen not to act is also a matter of concern.

    Our ‘strong’ constitutional separation of judicial power from the political arms of government must involve statutory interpretation, but, not judicial legislation. This is a hotly contested concept of ‘bucket load’ proportions. Judicial updating of either our Constitution or legislation is fraught with the conundrum of ‘who guards the guards?’

    This is worsened when the Parliament also fails to respect the people’s ownership of the Constitution by way of not recognising or initiating s128 Referendum Constitutional scenarios.

    Surprisingly, the ‘learned’ opinion of the Federal Attorney General, and Federal Parliament not only usurped the s128 Referendum Constitutional power from the bulk of the Australian people whilst trying to halt a minor territory government’s provocative attempt to introduce its own SSM laws, but a remedy of greater ease meant they should easily have dismissed this action by s122 of the Constitution relating to preventing territories acting like they are our national government! In that case, rather than making a simple decision that stated that the Federal Constitution restricted the Territory making any reference to ‘marriage’ as unconstitutional, the dice was rolled to see if the High Court judges could make sense of it all.

    Eight questions were deemed by the High Court to require answers. The judges determined no less than half of them “need not be answered” and, obviously both disappointed and underworked, the High Court took a most unusual position and, contrary to its out dicta and normal legal practice, decided they would answer questions not asked and without any opportunity for opposing argument, so it seems all parties were out manoeuvred, perhaps by design of Senator Brandis, even deliberately?
    Tolerating the HCA’s unilateral processes in the 2013 Marriage case (and other judicial ‘work arounds’) is tacit consent that s128 of the Constitution is no longer required and that the meaning of words in the Constitution are juridical playthings morphing in time. We now find ourselves in a position where statutory language is capable of bearing any meaning irrespective of the Constitution, common law or any underlying purpose of statute law.

    This controversial change in social and, arguably, economic and legal policy upon which elements of the political arms of government and wider public resist (or at least take exception) is the result of the HCA’s decision that marriage is, in effect, a boundless area, albeit centred on the HCA’s self-identified elements.

    So what does the law say about marriage and family?
    The Australian Constitution (dating from 1901) has two, deliberately separate (but numerically concurrent) sections (heads of power) in the Constitution. The first s51 (xxi) with an uncontroversial single word “Marriage” (as understood in 1901, and defined in the common law and understood, if not explicitly defined until 2004, in the Marriage Act 1961). This was as uncontroversial and as plain in meaning as it was in its absolute brevity. It’s hard to contemplate that it needed expansion.

    The second section, s51 (xxii), is entitled to deal with”divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants.” This second ‘head of power’ is covered by statute via the Family Law Act of 1975 (as noted earlier) and that since it’s making, encompassed and stated the traditional definition of marriage some 29 years before the so called Howard ‘redefinition.’

    This debunks one of the big misunderstandings behind the SSM campaign that ‘marriage’ was redefined by the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act. That the Parliament (both major parties) as recently as 2004, intentionally reinforced the traditional understanding and existing provisions of common law and statutory law was unremarkable to the majority, and is repeated in many other European Constitutions and since overridden (by narrow majority of the SCOTUS) in many US State Laws and constitutional provisions despite the deliberate resolution of the people.

    Ignoring this existing Constitutional division in Australia, as well as the common law and statutory law position of both marriage and family law, that since surrender of State powers, now sees de facto arrangements also subject to the FLA, the High Court of Australia seriously erred in either conflating the ‘marriage is not about children’ fallacy or failing to note s43 of the Family Law Act 1975 (detailed below).

    In ignoring the strict legislative definition of marriage in the Marriage Act and referring to s6 of the FLA (essentially a savings provision to cover those exceptions of pre-existing overseas wed polygamous couples) to find a definition of marriage wide enough for its purpose, the HCA used this ‘exception’ as an essential part of its ‘ratio’ to say that, if polygamy can be allowed, then SSM is equally permissible, even if explicitly different to statute.

    Interestingly, both the Court and Parliament, in recognising that other cultural ‘male and female arrangements’ met the conditions of marriage, did not question the contradiction between s6 of the FLA and s94 of the Marriage Act on bigamy, however, given de facto law, the necessity for ‘marriage’ recognition for multiple partners (irrespective of genders) probably made the issue of the numbers of partners a moot point.

    In using the FLA to determine the marriage issue – exercising jurisdiction – the HCA also ignored the provisions of s43 that meant that it could not unilaterally redefine the participants in marriage, yet alone the purpose of marriage.

    FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – SECT 43
    Principles to be applied by courts
    (1) The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to:
    (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life;
    (b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children;
    (c) the need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare;
    (ca) the need to ensure protection from family violence; and
    (d) the means available for assisting parties to a marriage to consider reconciliation or the improvement of their relationship to each other and to their children”

    In the 2013 High Court decision on Marriage, the High Court of Australia basically ignored the first head of power on Marriage and did a ‘reverse slippery slope’ by taking a more obscure part of the FLA:
    “FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – SECT 6
    Polygamous marriages
    For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage. ” and making it a point of ‘juristic classification.’

    So, ignoring the actual head of power in the case brought to the High Court the judges turned to the law on the subsequent head and then – quite selectively – said that because the FLA allows polygamy, therefore, marriage is not immutable and therefore SSM is self-evidently covered in the first power – despite the explicit common and statute law prohibiting polygamy and bigamy.

    Post a Reply
    • So, to summarise, we have SSM permissible because polygamy is permissible already according to the High Court!!

      The Muslim community already has and will only expand its polygamy remit with the passing of SSM.

      Post a Reply
  2. After polygamous marriage then whats’ next?? Child marriage!! This will lead to a massive change to our society! That is one the reasons why Roman Empire collapsed!

    Post a Reply
    • Sadly so many people are still unaware of the dangerous repercussions of legalising same sex marriage!

      Post a Reply
  3. The Political Class of Germany is united against the German nation on SSM as well as every other issue. In fact, Morghul Merkel has even told the German people there is no such thing as ‘the German nation’.

    Post a Reply
  4. It’s a win for the Satanic rag heads, they will run any cunning deceptive type of warfare to get a foot in the door and the majority of Australians are just so gullible to such tactics.

    It opens the door to all Satanic filth, countless many wives and then it will lead to marring goats, dogs, you name it. why not ! you can’t stope this type of crap once the genie is out of the bottle.

    This is all about bastardising the “Word” and not to mention the “institution of Marriage” and undermining the rights of a healthy regard for a true Family’s rights.

    Nothing can truly be equal to the true factual definition of Marriage, so why make the word partnership equal to Marriage, it’s a bold face underhanded lie, not to mention a work of Satan the one who leads the whole world astray.

    Post a Reply
    • You said it well, including child marriage. I know of Catholics from Sudan got married when they were only 14. The juxtaposition of pagan/ Muslim cultures.

      Post a Reply
  5. What’s yours point? Another 387 voted yes those 6 made no difference.

    Post a Reply
  6. It’s just so hard to think that Muslims want equality, hey 🙄

    Post a Reply
  7. What you see in this “vote” is contrary to the Quran.

    Muhammad and Allah will be angry about this vote….. just READ the Quran.
    The Quran is what Muslims follow…..not some joker in the pack politicians.

    Imams run Muslim actions; not politicians.

    Post a Reply
    • That is Tarqyii (deception) in action!! Don’t be surprised with that.

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares