The Governor-General, the media and general stupidity

I would like to thank the Governor-General for making it abundantly clear that she is unfit for her role. She did it in grand style over the weekend, throwing her support behind two failed causes that those she governs have rejected demonstrably at the ballot box: the destruction of marriage and the destruction of our constitutional monarchy.

The Governor-General informed us via the ABC (no surprises there) that she hoped Australia might become a nation where people “are free to love and marry whom they choose”. Then she brazenly calculated that Prime Minister Abbott would not have the courage to sack her and backed the republican cause.

If Her Excellency the Honourable Quentin Bryce AC CVO had any honour at all, she would now hang her head in shame, apologise for politicising the most important office in the land and then resign.

I’m not sure what country Ms Bryce has been governing lately, but the one I live in allows people to love others unreservedly.

Anyone who is stupid enough to think otherwise is not fit to hold any public office. And as far as I can tell, the only person in Australia who actually believes that we are not free to love is the Governor-General. That is a problem, but the good news is that there 22.68 million (and counting) other Australians who are already eminently more qualified for the job than her.

Australians do not live under tyrannical legal constraints limiting their ability to love others. There are no hordes under threat of legal sanction simply because they care for someone else. Australian laws do not regulate love. There is no Australian ‘Love Police’. The whole concept is an absurdity that lives only in recesses of the Governor-General’s mind.

The other absurdity that cohabits the same vice-regal mental alcove is that there are laws limiting the rights of Australians to freely marry whom they choose.

Again, I’m not sure what parts of Australia Her Excellency has been hanging out in, but there is no evidence anywhere that Australian laws compel people to marry those whom they do not wish to wed, or those who they do not love.

On the contrary, Australian laws prevent compulsory, arranged marriages. That is why bearded old men who advocate Sharia law want them changed. They would prefer it if they could force nine year girls into lives of sexual bondage under the lusting care of their mates.

Australian laws regarding marriage are very clear. They apply to all uniformly. There is no class of people who have more rights to marriage above those of another class. The only exception is for children. They are the only citizens of this land who can truly claim that they do not have equal marriage rights.

And this is where the general stupidity of the media comes into play. They have portrayed the Governor-General’s radical statements as support for homosexual marriage, which, by definition, is not actually marriage at all. The term is an oxy-moron, so it is no surprise that the concept is supported by morons.

But that’s not what she said she supported. Not at all. The Governor-General’s comments clearly support so much more: a society in which I could marry my mother just because I love her.

The press have ignored this fact altogether.

But there is no getting around this truth. If the Governor-General really means what she said, if she really believes that Australians should be free to marry whomever they love, then she supports incest. And polygamy. And marriage between adults and children.

Because you cannot have the utopian nightmare the Governor-General dreams of with its free marriage for whomever is in love without accepting that incest, polygamy and sexual relationships between children and adults are acceptable.

But let’s face it, the Governor-General has hung her hat with the marriage equality crowd. And the leading proponents of marriage equality across the world want just that.

Take Peter Tatchell. He was born and bred Down-Under but now spends his time living it up as a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. You might remember that she recently gave Royal Assent to England’s new marriage equality laws which Peter has spent much of his life championing as an LGBT activist.

But Pete’s not finished yet. There’s still work to be done. That’s why he’s now come out of the closet and written that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 (actually, he’s been out of that closet for a long time now). His reasoning is that it will stop the criminalisation of youngsters who get up to a bit of mischief – even if it is with older men.

Aren’t we lucky to have homosexuals like Peter taking such as interest in protecting 14 year olds from the long arm of the law if they consent to being sodomised by older men?

And as he says, if no one complains, does it really matter?

It would appear from the Governor-General’s comments that she thinks the ideas about marriage, sex and love that Peter and his mates push are pretty good. I’m pretty sure most other Australians would politely beg to differ, just as they do regarding the republican movement.

The republic has been demonstrably and democratically rejected by the vast majority of Australians. A long time ago. And since then, support for the cause has fallen. For those reasons, and for the office she holds, the Governor-General is the last person in Australia that should be talking about it.

Apart from the general impression it gives that she lacks all respect for our institutions and government, the Governor-General is the one person in Australia who is supposed to be above politics. And when advocates for an Australian republic are so disrespectful of our current democratic conventions, one can only wonder what kind of republic they have in store.

It’s obviously not one in which democracy is respected. It seems more like one in which unelected officials get to tell the rest of us what we should think. Because that is exactly what Quentin Bryce has done.

And to make it worse, Ms Bryce has also demonstrated that under her republican values it is fine and dandy for the person holding the highest office in the land to use their position to assist the political fortunes of their nearest and dearest.

If you don’t like the idea of an hereditary head of state, having an unelected republican usurp their authority to pump up the political sails of her son-in-law doesn’t seem like a much better alternative.

But that is what has happened here in Australia.

Bill Shorten is the opposition leader. He’s also Ms Bryce’s son-in-law. And he supports homosexual marriage and an Australian republic. In fact, he’s the most prominent politician in this land to do so. It’s clear that the Governor-General has not only got all political on these issues, but that she is also skipping merrily down a path called opportunistic political nepotism.

If the Governor-General really wanted to avoid claims of bias, as was reported when she offered to resign after Bill was elected by hapless Labor members to become the dude who replaced Kevin Rudd, she would not have allowed herself to be branded a supporter of ‘marriage equality’ or the republic.

But she did, so it’s clear that the Governor-General is not really concerned about bias at all and is more interested in using her vice-regal role to play politics – politics that helps her son-in-law.

The only reason Ms Bryce has done this is because she believes that she can get away with it.

There is only one person with the power to decide if she can: Tony Abbott. Will he ensure respect for our institutions, or will he watch as they are eroded from the very top in order to support the political fortunes of the Labor Party and Bill Shorten. My bet is that he will choose the latter. Australia will be the weaker for it.

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

17 Comments

  1. Peter Tatchell has never advocated adults having sex with children. He does not support this. He says adults should NOT have sex with children. He has never advocated the abolition of ages of consent. He has said that if young people of similar ages have sex below the age of 16 they should not be prosecuted, providing they both consent and there is no coercion, manipulation or exploitation. Treating these young people as criminals is wrong. They need counselling, not prosecution
    Read here:
    http://petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/Under-age-sex-Statement-of-clarification-by-Peter-Tatchell.htm
    &
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/21/peter-tatchell-the-uk-should-look-at-lowering-the-age-of-consent-to-14/

    Post a Reply
    • You are right. He doesn’t advocate paedophilia. That’s why he said “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.” That is disgusting and it is hypocritical. And, I cannot think of a nicer way to encourage children to have sex with adults.

      Post a Reply
  2. Homosexuals have fewer marriage rights in the sense that they can’t marry who they love, unless that person happens to be of the opposite sex. They do have equal rights in the sense that they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. There are circumstances though where legally recognizing a gay couple would be advantageous. For example, centrelink payments, or any other situation where a gay couple could have an unfair advantage over a heterosexual married couple. But then, if they’re going to be essentially penalized for being recognized as a monogamous couple, what logical reason is there to deny them the benefits? Of course, you could just level the playing field on relationships and instead focus on providing extra benefit for reproduction and child raising instead.

    Post a Reply
  3. The Governor is the representative of the Queen. Her public pronouncements should be in line with those of the Head Of State. On topics where the Queen has not expressed a public opinion, nor should the Governor General.

    Post a Reply
    • Right on Phil
      The Governor General’s Office is not an office of independence but one of representation and who does the Office represent” The Crown – in this case, Queen Elizabeth II.
      What has not been considered is that every word that comes out of the GG’s mouth are words that may be considered spoken by the Monarch.
      In this, Quentin Bryce has in affect allowed the Queen to commit political suicide.
      As to the endorsement of homosexuality, in my view, this is not just political suicide it is outright suicide not only for herself but all those that are stupid enough to engage in homosexuality. We remember Freddy Mercury and Peter Allan – both prominent entertainers and both died of HIV/AIDS.

      Post a Reply
  4. All I hear from you Gaynor is ‘this person is so dumb because [picks something they’ve said and flips it around]’, however I find you of very low intelligence yourself. I have asked you a question on Twitter multiple times but instead of you answering me, you danced around the issue. It was so funny to read I took a screenshot of it and shared a laugh with friends. Now, obviously what the GG is saying is that some have more legal rights to love others than others do. For instance, I can marry, my friend can not and this is clearly discrimination. Stop making large blogs where you flip peoples words around; you clearly know what they’re trying to say. STICK TO THE ISSUE! (I am waiting for you to point out a literacy or communication error in what I wrote, because clearly you find it easier to do that than tell us WHY you’re against gay marriage).

    Post a Reply
    • Your friend can marry, just not someone of the same sex. If the GG is saying that some have more legal rights to love than others because there is no same sex marriage then the GG is wrong. If marriage is soley about partnering with someone you love then we can remove sex from the equation all together. And if we do that then marriage should be open to all. A man should be able to marry his dog if love is the sole criterion. But love is not the sole criterion much and all as it is an esssential part of marriage. Complementarity is also an essential aspect which has been part of marriage since the beginning and it is the reason men can only marry women and vice versa. The whole idea of gay marriage is nothing but the deconstruction of an institution that has served mankind well for all of recorded history and before. In conclusion your concept of discrimination is so flawed as to be useless. Using it I could say that you have discriminated against Bernard Gaynor by claiming he is of very low intelligence. Surely he has the right to be considered as intelligent as anyone else? Fortunately Rhi, I don’t subscribe to your ideas so I can say quite plainly that I consider your intellect to be well below par.

      Post a Reply
      • Whats funny is under the marriage act two cousins can marry each other and even worse a uncle can marry his niece but two homosexuals no thats way to far and will cause the deconstruction of an institution.

  5. I miss Michael Jefferies as our GG. He was always dignified and always seemed to be in the right place at the right time.

    I still have no idea of his political leanings and that is a great testament to him. He certainly appeared to be a man’s man and not some wet fish activist like Mr William Deane.

    Post a Reply
  6. Spot on and I absolutely agree. The Governor-General should hang her head in shame. She has provided the perfect example of how NOT to behave to the next Governor-General . I wonder if anyone has told her the Australia as a nation that is “free to love and marry whom they choose” already exists? Because to my knowledge, every Australian over the age of 18 is completely free to marry, providing it is to a compatible partner ie. someone of the opposite sex. Can’t see any discrimination there.

    Post a Reply
    • So she has no right to express her on views?

      Post a Reply
      • As long as she is Governor General – none whatsoever. Lest the next one take it a bit further and start refusing to sign pieces of legislation, for exactly the same reason.

  7. People who support gay marriage are morons, plain and simple? Does that make advocates for the re-criminalisation of homosexuality geniuses?

    Post a Reply
    • Talk about leading with your chin, mate.

      Post a Reply
  8. Bernard are you saying the because her son-in-law supports gay marriage she shouldn’t?
    What if he didn’t support gay marriage would you be upset if she also came out saying she didn’t support it either.
    She has a right to express her opinion and you of all people should know that.

    Post a Reply
    • The answer to your question, Paul, is “Yes”. The Governor-General CANNOT express political thoughts that he /she holds, for as long as he/she holds that highest of offices. So even if the Governor-General shared all of Bernard’s beliefs, he/she could NOT express them during their time as Governor General. Otherwise, mate, when a conservative Governor General is eventually appointed – you won’t mind if he/she starts to refuse to sign pieces of legislation presented to them by Parliament, will you? Because that also is a means by which their right to express an opinion can be effected. You need to use that dormant organ that lies flaccid and supine between your ears a little bit more, mate, or risk being termed a “moron”.

      Post a Reply
  9. Great to see you can debate without calling people who support gay marriage morons Bernard.

    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