James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree

Coalition’s Christmas legacy

January 3, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Christmas, one normally assumes a time of goodwill and charity. We read and absorb selected stories because they are ones that remind us of our need to give to others. At this time charities take advantage of the spirit of goodwill of this time, to promote their work amongst the community, and gather the bounty of “grain into the barn” sufficient to last them through the dry seasons that follow this outpouring of generosity. People are also distracted with matters of family, consumerism, charity, religious observances, friends, barbecues, children, school year completions, holidays and – in areas that aren’t in the retail industry – a slowing down for office workers. Parliament closes down for the year, and so one assumes that political machinations take a break. It is also assumed, of course, that no one is listening to them at this time of the year. However, what is recognized as a lull in proceedings (where everyone is preoccupied), it would appear that the LNP party has been surprisingly active. Those who have not taken their eye from the Liberal party’s agenda were surprised to discover activity in the making.

The liberal party’s ideals of charity and goodwill for Christmas appear to have taken a turn towards making decisions that continue to act against our collective good as a nation and as a people. Perhaps, they thought we weren’t looking, and many of us were not!

ENVIRONMENT

Tourism in Australia is eclipsing mining as a revenue source for our economy. As real commodity prices continue to drop – as they have since 2011 – and expectations in an international environment committed to a reduction in coal usage; hope for a return to commodity price booms are diminishing year by year. As the mining industry continues to employ now less than 2% of the workforce, and a diminishing return to the GDP. (Actually, mining contributed nothing/zero/zip/nada to economic growth in the last December 2014 quarter – dropping from 5.6% in 6 months.) It would appear to be an unusual and short-sighted resolution to approve a massive expansion of the Abbott Point coal terminal. Given that such a conclusion will result in the mass destruction of our coral reefs, which form one of the major attractions (that being tourism) in this region, how does trashing tourism and favouring mining make for an economically sustainable decision? The ENVIRONMENT minister, Greg Hunt’s Christmas time decision, to approve the expansion as mentioned above – which will involve dredging 1.1 million cubic meters of spoil near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This surely will be questioned as environmentally irresponsible in the courts as previous attempts to progress this mine have been.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Peter Dutton appears to have followed similar levels of compassion as did the former Minister for Immigration, Morrison’s charitable inclinations. The flip-flopping over the decision to deny a terminally ill Pakistani man (Hassan Asif) to see his family, and this he suddenly reversed AFTER holding a press conference defending his decision to deny the visa. It is notable that his first instinct was to deny access to this dying man’s family. Hassan was NOT a refugee or an asylum seeker or someone who came here by boat. Aside from having flown here legitimately, he was a student studying in Melbourne, who discovered that he had terminal cancer. Oddly (to Dutton’s perceptions), his parents wanted to be with their son as he died. Unfortunately, as no commercial airline would fly him home in his condition, the only option available was for his family to fly to him. Christmas charity, or any charity for that matter, was certainly not foremost on Mr Dutton’s mind. But this is consistent with the nature of the compassion exhibited by all Ministers for Immigration produced by the Liberal Party to date.

WORKING PENALTIES

Christmas was also the time that the productivity commission report into workplace relations was released. Amongst its recommendations, the slashing of penalty rates for Sundays confirmed the inclination to revoke these rights that have been a long running preoccupation of the Liberal party to worker’s rights in Australia. Workplace relations minister, Michaelia Cash, has particularly avoided addressing the issue with the press and criticised Labor and the unions for “scaremongering”. Despite attempts to relegate the report to an arena of objective non-governmental decision-making, it is – to date – surprisingly aligned with the conversations about revoking penalty by members of the Liberal party. In a country of high unemployment where the unemployed outnumber the jobs available in the country by a very wide margin, the proposal that the savings would allow businesses to hire more people has numerous inherent fallacies socio-economically and mathematically.

Example calculation of the mathematical Savings in Penalty rate changes.

The majority of Australian workplaces (85.1% of all businesses) are micro businesses (i.e. less than five employees). The savings from penalty reductions would not be enough to fund the employment of additional staff. Under the current proposal, a business would save itself a quarter of the hourly rate on a Sunday (Double time on Sunday reduced to 1.5 times hourly rate – according to the productivity commission report). By my calculations, a business would need to be employing at least a dozen employees (depending on the mix of days any given staff may be employed in a business), so that penalty rate reductions could fund an additional full-time employee. Small businesses that employ 5 to 19 people represent 10.8% of Australian Businesses. The argument that this is beneficial simultaneously for micro to small businesses and employment rates is simply not true for the vast majority of Australian workplaces. That is 95.9% of businesses for those who haven’t yet done the math.

ABS Stats on percent of real business numbers in Australia

It is only the larger industries (0.3% of businesses) and medium sized industries (3.8% of businesses) which employ more than 20 people in their enterprise that may find significant enough savings to afford to make a change to unemployment in this country – always providing they were so willing. When employment in larger industries is diminishing (such as mining, manufacturing & construction), consumer confidence is low, retail sales data shows diminishing returns, and wage growth is already sadly small, why exactly would large. Where is the economic stimulus being directed?

There is, in fact, little evidence that changing penalty rates will do anything to change employment rates. If you diminish the wages available to employees in small businesses, less money will be expended in the economy by these employees, as they reduce discretionary spending to pay more “essential” bills. There is an argument that in fact, such steps will only push us further into recession. We have only avoided an official classification of a recession in the last term of 2015 because of the national accounting practices in relation to recording defence spending, not because, we have had any real growth in the economy.

The personal cost of absent penalty rates

Essentially revoking penalty rates is a massive wage cut for many already poorly paid workers. What they are paid is usually entirely spent within their local community/economy. The LNP claim that reducing penalty rates will allow a small business to employ more people is fallacious, as has already pointed out. The consequence of having your small number of employees paid less, is that they withdraw discretionary spending which would otherwise be supporting a local economy spread over a diverse range of businesses. The singular café owner who circulates his saved costs over a less diverse range (or saves it, as margins on many small enterprises are minimal) producing a smaller economic effect. Consequently, less money with a smaller circulation range results in a more recessed economy. Add now a nation wide multiplier effect.

Penalty rate reductions do provide a boost to large company’s bottom line. Many of these corporate organisations – as we have recently become aware – channel profits overseas and pay no tax (or very little).

These companies removing money from our economy partially accounts for a huge national balance of payment inequity. These corporation’s contributions are therefore limited to:

direct wages (which will reduce with fewer penalty rates to pay),
local chattels & infrastructure,
local services providers,
good or services they produce,
and of course, large donations to the Liberal and Labor parties.

COMMUNICATIONS (NBN)

The next Christmas present is the one the government has provided to the increasingly privatised Telstra organization. We have now been witness to the most absurd parody where the already over-costed but inferior speed internet NBN design choice has resulted in an $80 Million Christmas gift to Telstra. What for, you may ask? We are apparently paying Telstra to repair the copper network the NBN had already bought from Telstra in the first place for $11 billion. Apparently, the ageing copper wires need to be replaced, and this was announced on the Monday before Christmas. Merry Christmas Telstra, Turnbull disguised as Santa Claus, has delivered a significant parcel of money to fix the crappy copper network you sold to us in the first place. It is no wonder the government wanted to sneak that one quietly past us all. We have a history of chronic failure and escalating costs dogging the steps of the National Broadband Network from the days it began. Especially since the Liberal party changed the parameters under which our national network should work. This latest farcical payment is just another reason for the nation to shake their head in despair for us ever becoming competitive internationally with nations that are far in advance of where we are.

Low Tech NBN Internet super dirt-track Plans

Just as a refresher on the National Broadband Network which began with Howard in which the increasingly obsolete copper was reviewed for preference for a fibre network by a Senate committee in 2003. Despite several false starts it never really floated until Labor announced its intention to build it, as an election platform in 2007. Submissions abounded till 2009 when Labor proposed a Fiber to the Premises/House (FTTP/FTTH) solution. NBN Co was created in 2009, and both criticism and praise followed the complicated progress of its creation and funding. Labor’s FTTH (Fiber to the House) model provided for 100Mb/sec transfer rates and public surveys showed over 70% public popularity. Malcolm Turnbull in opposition began advocating a Fibre to the Node (FTTN) model but took no account of how degraded the copper network and street hubs were to connect from nodes to home and workplaces despite being otherwise advised. The promise was 25Mb/sec by 2016. The Abbott government changed the strategy mid operation to an FTTN model in a politically motivated review. Nobody managed to keep any of their promises or claims and pricing rises, and technological obstructions multiplied. The result has been a short sighted waste of time that has squandered billions of dollars on obsolete technology that will leave our country lagging behind the developed world. (44th for Internet speeds in the world so far).

HEALTH AND EDUCATION

Economic prosperity for any country can only be enhanced by the health and education of its participants. Undercutting both education and health can only ultimately be detrimental to economic growth and prosperity. Two days before Christmas, the Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley, announced that 23 tests and procedures formally covered by Medicare would be dropped. Amongst these tests and procedures – which cost $6.8 million in 2015 – including ear, nose and throat surgery and diagnostic imaging. But who uses such tests you might ask? Whoever it was, that used these tests and surgery, accessed it over 52,000 times in 2015. Therefore, Sussan Ley’s claim that these items removed, “was obsolete”, does not stack up statistically. The Australian Medical Association has, of course, been up in arms over the loss of these items from the Medicare benefits schedule. The financial cost to the community alone is not one that will contribute to the economic prosperity of our country.

Even the Health Minister, Sussan Ley, admitted some patients “may be worse off”. The AMA has accused the government of restructuring health costs to families as a way of introducing a form of co-payment by stealth following repeated failures to convince the senate it was a “viable” idea.

CUT, SNIP, CHOP

If you were one of the early Christmas shoppers, you might have noted Malcolm Turnbull’s latest budget was delivered in early December as the Christmas trees were appearing in our stores. Malcolm’s early Christmas contributions included cuts to aged care, health bodies, aged pension, income support payments, welfare payments, family assistance/payment/tax benefit/day care, green environmental programs, numerous health programmes and a plethora of education and training programs. These and other cuts demonstrate the continued failure of the Liberal government to want to support the health and education of the Australian people. On the next subject of Education – already late in the Christmas season – members of the government are saying the Turnbull government will not fund the final two years of the Gonski school funding. Merry Christmas to our children!!

INNOVATION

All of these cuts were implemented to fund a $1 billion innovation package announcement, which was vaguely delivered without real detail. It seems vaguely reminiscent of a similar announcement was made by Kevin Rudd made in April of 2008 at the “Australia 2020 Summit convention”. The irony of that seems to have escaped the Liberal Party despite social media commenting on it incessantly. Most of this is not provided by way of direct funding but by way of tax cuts and exemptions. Other encouragements such as foreshortening bankruptcy periods will most certainly be exploited by unscrupulous individuals to avoid debt repayment and allowing them a faster return to business. Thereby repeating the process by fleecing another group of undiscerning victims. The large business concerns, will, of course, rebrand themselves as “innovators” to take advantage of even more lax tax laws resulting in providing even less contribution to the Australian economy. This is the Liberal Party’s version of the solar panel and insulation scheme. Failure to attend to detail is something of which both major parties are guilty. That said, it’s not hard to determine who will benefit from Turnbull’s package.

Innovation will only work when supported by:

technology (strike the NBN),
a healthy population (strike GP Co-payments & Medicare reductions),
educated community (strike industrial skills, Gonski and expensive Tertiary education)
and a number of stimulus programs which would support workforce participation in innovation.

If your party is already undercutting education initiatives (with plans now submitted to the senate many times) to render the burden of education across the community in higher debt levels to participants, then from where does the appetite for innovation come? Certainly not from educated Australians who are burdened with debts. Indebtedness reduces people’s willingness to participate in “risk” that Turnbull is fond of suggesting we take. It also provides a sociological inhibitor to undertaking high-risk innovation, when a safe low-risk office job that will ensure financial capacity to repay debt is in the offering, although with our massive unemployment levels and relatively tiny job vacancies … perhaps not.

Turnbull does correctly realise that Australia’s private sector industries are often too risk-averse to invest in the commercialisation of new technologies and innovations without massive government support. His $1 billion initiative is such a “support”. Historically brilliant Australian innovations are developed and exploited overseas. As a result, many innovative research and development workers find work and support away from Australia. As it is, Australia businesses frequently outsource technical jobs overseas and bypass local intellectual and creative industry workers for reasons usually related to cost of wages and recruitment. (as do the banks, communications and travel industries along with every small business person who gets their work done by cheap foreign labour). All of these practices undercut Australian innovation and development. The private sector enterprises unwilling to develop innovative ideas to a commercial level, preferring instead to survive by sponging off the taxpayer through subsidies and driving down wages and conditions of their employees. So who exactly is Turnbull hoping will engage in all this innovation by providing, even more, taxpayer funded “subsidies” or tax relief? Is this an approach that will work or backfire? Funding to organisations that have historically contributed to innovations in technology such as CSIRO has been savagely cut under this government. So one has to question just how much thought has been put into the practical applications of this idea.

CSIRO

Now there is much talk about Turnbull providing an extra $100 million in funding to the CSIRO. This step is not dissimilar to the situation in regards his much-publicised increases to domestic violence funding of $100 million after Abbott had previously cut $300 million and overseen closures of numerous shelters. The situation here is remarkably similar. It turns out that Abbott cut $111 million in the May budget to CSIRO resulting in organisation wide staffing cuts. Twenty percent of CSIRO’s staff have already left. Suggesting that CSIRO now has sufficient funding to re-employ these experts is naïve. It overlooks the fact that science is a global labour market and the disengagement that comes from arbitrary retrenchment. Further, there has been a loss of momentum on resource & time critical projects that have been closed for months now. Very much like the D.V. situation where shelters had already closed and had not been reopened, CSIRO projects have similarly closed. Again a striking similarity of language used by the recipients of Domestic Violence and CSIRO funding where the term “first step to repair” was frequently used. Projects have already been irrevocably damaged by the loss of intellectual capital provided by long-term researchers. The damage has already been critical and funding a recovery will cost far more than was taken initially. It is also the case that the funding is tied to certain commercial provisions, so CSIRO is no longer free to return to its original directions even if they were able. If Turnbull is contributing less than that which was taken, it is simply insufficient to repair damage already incurred. The consequence is that real innovation from an organisation, which has historically delivered numerous technological breakthroughs, has already been lost.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM THE GOVERNMENT

I believe this covers all the Christmas contributions that the Liberal Party have offered to Australia for 2015.

Happy Christmas from the Liberal Party taking support from the elderly pensioners, penalty rates for low-income earners, Medicare rebates from the ill, education programs from students, tourism from tourists, sustainability from the environment, hope from refugees (or any ‘bloody’ foreigner), and research funding from scientists. Unlimited charity and generosity are extended to mining and big business interests, particularly those that fund their party – to the tune of million$.

Christmas

December 27, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Another Christmas passes and “hope and joy” are the themes that flow in plenty as images of baby Jesus in a manger flood the mail electronic and physical. It may surprise some to discover that Christmas is also celebrated in middle eastern countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Despite wars, starvation, pestilence and hardship, bombings, rebellions, militants, Dalesh, etc, that child in a manger has a presence there too. But which Jesus is it that calls the faithful, across such a range of cultures and backgrounds. Surely it is apparent to many that the white baby in the images of the western world would be an unlikely candidate for acceptance in the middle eastern world in which he grew up. In fact, how did a Palestinian Jew such as Jesus – and in fact – the entire Hebrew race, for that matter, become as WHITE skinned as these men and women are so often depicted? Ever looked at a western picture and noticed how “white” they all were or are we so unconsciously culturally conditioned to accept this as “normal” that you never questioned it? This idea of a “white Christ” has begun to fascinate me recently, especially when you look at the Jewish historian, Josephus’s description of Christ, which appeared to suggest he was not so different from his fellow Palestinians. In an ancient world full of Romans, Arabs, Jews and Palestinians it is worth noting many hold to the belief that Christ was a dark skinned Palestinian political dissident nothing like the white conservative as is painted in Western Churches! Are there indeed at least two Christs followed by the Christian community?

The Black Christ

It’s an interesting question to ask, which Jesus you worship, accept, deny or rave against, isn’t it? Some minority of us in the western world and probably more in the Middle East celebrate the birth of a small dark-skinned, stateless and displaced child whose Palestinian (all that region was Palestine then) Jewish parents were – immediately following his birth – rendered as asylum seekers. A royal decree by their government pursued them – via the local “constabulary” – desirous of slaying their child (and probably the parents for good measure). Fortunately, a neighbouring Arab State (Egypt) gave refuge to this fleeing asylum seeking family so he could later return to grow up in occupied territory where he becomes a “radicalised” (at least according to the leadership of that time) but – usually – nonviolent revolutionary. Admittedly he did “lose it” in that violent outburst in the central city of religious observance’s main holy temple, where he disrupted commercial trading in what might be described as the first “occupy movement”. Other than this, he was relatively non-violent, which does although, speak significantly about his perceptions and reactions to, what he considered inappropriate commercial dealings. These protestations, among other offences, did mark him as a criminal agitator. His criminal associates did include hookers and tax fraudsters. He also propagated unhealthy associations with lepers and the socially ostracised which further marginalised him. He spoke no English although was fluent in local and middle eastern languages. He expressed publicly at large rallies philosophies that were ostensibly anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, and even anti-public prayer in a religious community. He did, on the other hand, NEVER raised a negative opinion about homosexuality, nor brought up subjects such as birth control, abortion or sexual preferences or gender orientation. He equally never chastised the disenfranchised or poor by referring to them as worthless or lazy. Instead of seeking a reduction in financial burdens (i.e. tax cuts) for the wealthiest Nazarenes, he actively pursued them to give more of their wealth away to provide for the poor. He did not ask the lepers he healed for co-payments but actively demanded his followers heal others without seeking compensation. He spoke angrily about abuse by authorities and was intolerant with corruption. His strongest language appeared reserved for the abuses of his own faith’s religious leadership. Who of course, responded by nailing him to a cross.

The White Christ.

The greater majority of the western world appear to follow the other “Jesus”. I and many atheist/agnostic companions may often refer to him as mythological, but he has an overwhelming following. This “mythical” white skinned gentle, handsome Nordic-looking conservative, with rolling long fair hair and well-groomed beard, has a very significant following. This handsome, blue eyed preacher is one who actively hates any act of feminine birth control (abortion or contraception); any and all sexual deviations from uniform heterosexuality and predetermined assigned gender roles. He actively encourages wars with foreigners including attacks on his former homeland; supports the insights of the well-funded oligarchs who fund government ideology that subsidises wealth and take from the poor; is universally misogynistic and racist, and disparages the poor and needy to blame them for the sins of the world. At least you would certainly think that by the example of his followers.

Which Christ?

It is this white Jesus that holds sway over significant populations in the Western democracies religious spirit. Western church communities tend to follow a version of this white Christ, sometimes preferring to be perhaps not quite as racist, or possibly in denominations being less misogynistic or less homophobic as conscience and social norms of the communities may dictate. But certainly, there are often sharp moral distinctions between the followers of the black Palestinian Jew and the white Nordic-looking Christian Christ.

The followers of the black Jesus are apparently in the minority. Certainly, it is hard to find a “following” of this Jesus in the western world. Perhaps it is more prevalent in the Middle East. I look forward to a day when we will find a following for this black Christ in the West. Personally, I must confess I dream of a time when the White Jesus is hung back on his cross, and stays there. <sigh>

Violent Christian terrorist shoots innocent civilians!

November 29, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Robert Dear is yet another White Christian Extremist that joins the pantheon of former White Christian terrorists in the bombing and shooting civilians in America. In spite of all the anxiety permeating American (and most western societies), it is still true to say the largest terrorist threat that successfully carries out regular acts of terror in the United States and other similar western nations are White men.

The outcome of reports of shots fired on a Friday morning (27th Nov) in Colorado Springs was followed by a five-hour siege as the white gunman fired shots from a medical clinic. The deaths of two civilians and a police officer along with nine other people were injured have added to the toll these Christian extremists extract on law abiding communities. At least eight staff of clinics providing support services to Mothers-to-be (or not to be) have been killed since 1977 by similar attacks by white Christian extremists. Even the Christian temples have not historically proved to be a safe haven (as supposedly advertised) from these extremists, as Dr George Tiller showed when shot to death at a church in Wichita, Kansas by a Christian extremist in May of 2009. Equally unsafe was the church where two people were killed by a similar extremist, during a children’s play in the Church in Knoxville, Tennessee in July of 2008. Since these times, these medical facilities have reported over 7,000 forms of violence by way of incidents of trespassing, vandalism, arson, and death threats.

The real source of Terrorism in the West

The clinic in Colorado Springs that suffered this reprisal was undoubtedly surprised they were targeted because usually shooting by Christian extremists have not targeted medical facilities in a while. Typically these type of terrorist targets school children (from multiple American school shooting to Kenyan universities where 147 died), movie theatres (Rusty Houser & the Louisiana theatre) government civic buildings (Timothy McVeigh), and youth community facilities (2011 Norway attacks). It has been some years since the 1994 bombing by the fanatical Army of God member in Massachusetts and the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing by these Christian fanatics, so it was a little “right” of the centre for this violence to be reoccurring again at medical establishments.

Radicalised by predominately white Christian Tea Party movement adherents, these terrorists have developed revolutionary view from a background of religious hatred. These hate mongers have long been calling for action against Planned Parenting doctors, nurses and clients. Evidence of this support for the Christian terrorist was garnered by the tweets of sympathisers. They have expressed views such as :

“No sympathy for any pregnant female that was injured … She deserved it or
described this Christian extremist as a “brave hero” more than once. Investigations into these tweets reported that “none of these Twitter accounts belong to Syrian refugees“. Apparently no Syrian passports were found near the site or on the person of Robert Lewis Dear. He appeared quite evidently to be a white American national who has “apparently” indiscriminately killed three people in his “valiant” terrorist crusade into what he believed was unholy ground and unholy persons. (Even though the police officer he killed was not part of the medical facility). His passport and records will no doubt be scrutinised to determine if he holds any foreign nationality to which cultural causality can be attributed. DNA tests will undoubtedly be conducted in the hope of discovering any ancestry to persons of colour or foreign ethnicity. To date, hopes for this are considered bleak.

Curiously since the shootings there have been no reported harassment of Christians nor calls for their religious temples to be closed down or burnt to the ground. The authorities are appreciative of the restraint the public has been showing towards these fundamentalist temples and their extremist adherents that have spoken out against these medical support facilities. Previous responses to religious terrorism has been know to be misplaced, such as the Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, of the 5th of Aug. 2012, so the current show of restraint has the local authority’s appreciation.

If only he'd been armed they would have never taken him. — If only he’d been armed they would have never taken him.

President Obama expressed his continued frustration at his failure to get “common sense gun safety laws” to pass Congress. Tea Party adherents fearing Middle Eastern extremists and their own government on both sides, continue to lobby for continuance of weak gun laws so only Christian extremists will retain rights to legally procure firearms. Keeping Americans safe from over reactive government police and army and Saudi Arabian plane passengers with plastic knives – because you can’t carry any guns on Aircraft – continues to be a major concern to Republicans.

FBI and police continue to be alert to radicalisation in these religious temples and will be keeping a close eye on hate speech emanating from the pulpits of the more fundamentalist establishments. If you hear these Christian fanatics speaking out against legal medical practices and encouraging hate speech and active violence against doctors and nurses in our community, the relevant authorities would undoubtedly appreciate the opportunity to be alerted and prevent future tragedies of this nature. Forewarned is forearmed, as was the case this year (2015) in which Christian Terrorist Robert Doggart was indicted for amassing weapons to attack an innocent and peaceful Muslim community. Stay alert people!

911

September 28, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The “War on Terror”

The “War on Terror” conscripted Australia into a prolonged battle on the other side of the world which – despite the protests of thousands of Australians –our PM, John Howard, threw soldiers and armaments (often bought from America) into it. The mythology of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” – long since repudiated – was the justification for this expensive foray into supporting the American War machine. There were other reasons of course. Aren’t there always. <sigh> Australia under the next Liberal PM, Tony Abbott, once again commenced sending planes and weapons (bought from America) into an insanely expensive foray into attacking ISIS in Syria, yet again in support of the American War machine which generated the ISIS battle ground because of its initial war in Iraq. In a never ending circle, we will perpetuate this war mongering and create the next generation against which to fight the next war. The middle East has been a target for Western Democracies ever since supposedly they attacked our allies, the Americans, a decade ago. Though some would suggest, it goes back even further, for now, I will focus on the common perception. Interestingly, the attack of 9/11 was predominately carried out by nationalities of other allies of America – Saudi Arabia. Yet it was Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria that feel our guns upon their backs. There is much about the 9/11 story from start to finish (which I doubt we have seen yet) that is a story of considerable inconsistencies. As we have been instigators of and cooperative in, this “War on Terror” for the last decade, it behoves us to question the origins of this involvement in American propaganda and war.

Architects & Engineers

Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth logo

A decade has passed since 9/11, and yet now a vast number of Americans & others seek a re-evaluation of the FEMA & NIST Investigations into the incident. Some suggest public discussion of the destruction of the three Trade Center buildings did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. I spent time some months ago gradually watching an excellent documentary film by “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!”. It concerns itself with the scientific context and does not speculate on the who or why which I find pragmatically relieving. It examines issues with the FEMA & NIST Investigation reports. It’s a 2 hour documentary of interviews with engineers, architects, and at the end clinical psychologists because it inevitably needs to deal with the issues of cognitive dissonance that arise.

WTC

The direct and collateral damage zone of 9/11

Despite the publicity, the very public nature of the event, the film footage, the investigations officially and unofficially, it remains an event in which misconceptions exist no matter what side of the arguments is peculating around the event you sit on. For myself the scope of the destruction is intriguing. It is often discussed regarding the two buildings which were hit and not the collateral damage. Although Building Seven across the street from and separated from WTC 1 by yet another building, generates an enormous amount of controversy. The thing about it all was that a total of seven World Trade Center buildings were ultimately destroyed but only two hit by planes. Yes, there was “collateral damage”. Two planes ran into the 110-story WTC 1 and 2. The 47-story WTC 7 across the street was suddenly leveled to the ground in seconds after what appeared to be spot fires (depending on whom you talk to). It’s collapse, and the speed and nature of its collapse are the single most pointed exception that everyone brings up in defence of something dodgy being afoot, to the alternative being that this is merely collateral damage from the foreign attack. There are plenty of sites attempting to debunk the conspiratorialists claims about WTC 1 and 2. The 47-story WTC 7 collapse just doesn’t “sell” as well for they who justify it, having just happened to collapse naturally, despite never having been hit. It’s always the one the anti-conspirators shy away from or deal with in very perfunctory terms. In fact, it isn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. Collateral Damage to WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 was suffered as large portions of WTC 3, 4, and 6 were also crushed. Then there were the peripheral buildings outside of the “zone” that was damaged and subsequently torn down. The nature of which buildings fell or were later demolished is, in of itself, concern for much speculation.

Dodgy film?

Manipulated image or just poor inadequate cameras with a lossy compression algorithm? — Manipulated image or just poor, inadequate cameras with a lossy compression algorithm?

Having suggested there is a conspiracy afoot, it is also evident some of the conspiratorial claims are clearly more obviously nonsense. The one’s that immediately come to mind, from my perspective of a film maker. There is the folk who suggest it wasn’t a real plane based on footage presumably sourced from a consumer quality camera with undoubtedly a small CMOS chip and limited focus capacity, that was taken by folks in New York with a camera handy. The other claim is often that the footage was faked and not made by the citizenry. More likely the footage is probably real but suffers from the problem all such small consumer cameras suffer from – compression technology. A small lesson in the manner in which pixel capture occurs would be useful. The compression algorithm inherent in most consumer cameras from a decade ago explains more than an examination of each supposed frame of the collision does. Subsequent image frames from such cameras are never full frames. Sometimes only one frame in 25 might capture the full image as each subsequent frame captures only a fragment of what the lens sees to reduce the otherwise large file size nature of what the video file would otherwise be. When a camera only records limited pixels each frame and the only full frame capture being what is known as an “iframe” (or full frame) then what you play back, is inevitably not what happened. These cameras are not designed to be examined frame by frame because they don’t store data that way. They are intended to be watched as running moving images to fool the eye that we are seeing “moving full frame pictures” when we are doing nothing of the sort. Add to that, that you are filming through a tiny lens with a small charge-coupled device (CCD) or more likely CMOS chips for most consumer cameras. The CMOS converts the visual data via an algorithm/codec (generally DV, MPEG-2 or AVCHD) to be compressed before it’s recorded to whatever media the camcorder is using, be it tape, a hard drive, a disc, or a memory card. Most of the data collected by the CMOS chip of pixels on each frame is simply lost and never recorded, but enough is retained to create the illusions that you can look at each frame one at a time. Most of the picture is constructed from pixels taken several frames ago with the minimal amount changed to generate the illusion of movement. The plane doesn’t appear to explode at the exact microsecond of an impact because the pixels are not entirely updated till each iframe occurs. Instead what you are looking at is a mathematical extrapolation of changing pixels to generate several intermediary partial frames between each iframe. It’s called lossy compression. Inaccuracy of positioning of visual data is a reflection of weak or small lens (resulting in visual noise and refractive distortion) and CMOS quality (resulting in skew distortions – especially if the subject is moving fast) but not grounds for a conspiracy about absent planes, or badly video edited evidence for a plane’s non-existence or explosions that appear to be “off-centre”. It’s more about the extrapolation of data stored by the inferior camera than grounds for doubting the existence of a genuine film or plane or proof of bad editing. You can look this stuff up yourself. I am not even going to give it credit by providing links. Hardly good evidence to be used to claim conspiracy.

Forensic searching

On the other hand, more careful and rigorous science and the investigation is applied in “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!” and no speculation as to responsibility. There is no doubt they have speculated, as many have and still do. How can one not, when faced with the weight of evidence and the dubious way the FEMA & NIST investigation was conducted? There are innumerable videos and commentaries on that and entire lobby groups dedicated to questioning their procedure. Determining what might have happened is a forensic search of shifting through the dust of evidence and that is what this film attempts to do.

Tea Party

In the interest of never letting facts get in the way of a good story

Not that this proves anything or finds any specific group responsible, mind you. There is an entire community in America represented by the “Tea Party” adherents who believe half a dozen impossible things before breakfast. Often accused of lacking education and rational thinking, the Tea party lobby for “changes” in American infrastructure, medical care and politics based on presumptions about their government and culture outside observers here in Australia might suggest is based on dubious evidence. America abounds in “crazies” in rather unique ways. So if America is the land of the conspiratorial and the paranoid, does this, in itself, invalidate theories that suggest 9/11 is not what it is sold to us as? Logically not, but emotive reactions to the proposal that there might be something to the theories, usually sway one’s beliefs, to ignore evidence to the contrary. To put it in the terms of the classic cliche: “Just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean your wrong!”. The documentary is although worth looking at ( the link here again ), then by all means look at the claims from it’s detractors.

Consequences

It is unlikely that the truth will come out while the possible perpetrators are still alive and possibly are in position to ensure detailed investigations are “delayed” and obfuscated. Misdirection and misinformation are the tools of war as Sun Tzu pointed out and in the battle for the truth for 9/11 we are at war with an unknown enemy who knows this well. In the meantime, whatever your views, the event was a catalyst for innumerable crimes and illegal or dubious forays into the wider world by the American War machine. The death toll of 9/11 pales in comparison to the actions and deaths that were generated by these subsequent events. Irrespective of what you may believe or who you blame for 9/11, it is very clear who was responsible for it’s aftermath. “Truth” is the first victim in this form of war and that is the nature of the world we live in, sadly!

Aylan

September 4, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The fate of Syrian refugees if we continue our abuse, our wars, our justifications.

When will we understand?
Our gulags need be canned!
When will we open the doors?
And release the prisoners of wars!
When will we try to seek?
To raise our voice and speak!
When will we find the truth?
Hidden by lies uncouth!
When will we acknowledge our race?
Has to answer a criminal case!
When will we open our eyes?
To the damage, we cause with our lies!
When will we finally believe?
All people equally grieve!
When will we seek to strive?
To have love – our hearts – to drive!

Not today, not here, not now
Till we make compassion a vow!
When there is nothing left to defend,
Only then, will all of this end!

…

We need to change who we are!

… (continued thoughts) …

I first saw the actual photo of this child in the wee hours this morning, as I was finishing off another article. Confronted by it, I wrote the poem above completing it around two in the morning, as I could not sleep. Having in some manner expressed my feelings I eventually crashed to bed. I woke as my son as usual jumped into our bedroom, begrudging his enthusiasm for being awake and alive. The image of this boy a few years older than my son haunted me. Once my son was at school, I began to explore his story. The image had gone viral and the reactions diverse. Some understandable and others are perplexing.

One reaction, which I have only recently become educated about, appears to be one of regarding it as “emotional porn” or “clickbait” and that somehow just mentioning it or how it makes us feel or what his death represents, dehumanises the boy. I would have thought it was exactly the opposite. It is the tragedy, the senselessness, and the horror of this, that humanises him in a way that we have not done, for thousands of refugees who died before this little boy.

I admit to having difficulties getting my head around this idea, so I am quoting someone else to try to get a sense of it and understand the objectionableness. It’s the use of the image of the boy as “a tool for others to use to promote or condemn anything“. (I am quoting here) We use images, stories, allegories from innumerable sources joyful, sad, uplifting and tragic to “promote or condemn” everything. How else do we as human beings address issues, build relationships between ideas, talk about life if not to illustrate it with our experiences, images, fears, loves, gut-wrenching retelling (in this case)? It is people’s visceral reaction to these pictures and the lobbying it generated that have induced Britain to announce intent to admit thousands of Syrian refugees into their country. It’s how we communicate as human beings. Why is this off-limits? How does this fail to give “regard to him as a human being“?

I tried to draw a parallel with the way our news services regularly show no regard for privacy to families in various breakdowns, calamities and dramas, in what the media benignly calls “public interest“. Perhaps it is the perspective revealed from our society’s turgid appetite for virtual reality shows and the manufactured breakdowns within them because it brings out the ugly underside of humanity. I understand why someone might object to these. These aspects of human behaviour, example and imagery that rarely have outcomes or influences that might elicit higher morality, compassion, an end to bullying, violence, war and oppression, that this story will. In fact, the former example seems to bring to the surface the racism, bullying and dysfunctional responses. This story is entirely about our regard for him as a human being and the tragedy of it all. Perhaps, although, it is all a matter of personal psychology. People who are genuinely altruistic react to such images and want to engage with it.

Personalities who aren’t altruistic, want to put it aside, out of sight and avoid being confronted with it. Then there are folks who are incapable of understanding emotional reactions at all. Which is a good segue to the official opinion of our prime minister, Tony Abbott? The political discourse is eclipsing human emotional response as Abbott attempts to twist this into fitting his agenda of “Stopping the Boats”. He sees its use as an instrument of political justification. Now there is someone who “uses this child’s image without regard to him as a human being”. (I am quoting again here) Social media has been understandably hostile to this suggestion.

Aylan’s image is becoming one of those seminal images like that of little Kim Phúc from the village of Trang Bang in South Vietnam running naked amidst other fleeing villages. It changed a nation’s attitude to the Vietnam War. Already the British government is reacting. Abbott and company seem unable to respond similarly. So aside from them, the rest of us are human, parents, grandparents and many of us capable of emotion and altruism. We must be the conscience, our leadership isn’t capable of, and rise to embrace this for the sake of the “Aylans” that will otherwise wash to shore. If only to bring about the sort of change the very scared little girl, Kim once did for America. While there is little we can to for Aylan or his family, Aylan’s death can have the power of life for thousands of Syrian refugees and given Brittan’s reaction, he already has.

In regards to Abdullah Kurdi, the father of Aylan as a human being and in regards to the feelings and rights of his family, he at least knows his son will be remembered and honoured. This tragedy, although, does not end here. Abdullah Kurdi has discontinued his efforts to go to Europe. He has lost both his children and his wife. He simply wants to take his family’s bodies back into the danger-zone he left to bury his family in Kobani. He also has stated he wants to stay there now, after having spent so much time and effort fleeing from there. I don’t think he cares anymore if he lives or dies by returning there. Some might think his returning there is suicidal and he probably would agree. In fact, were I him, and I had lost what he has lost, I would probably thank the first I.S. fighter I encountered in his troubled land, who put a gun to my head.

Kobane, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked — Kobani, Syria after the U.S. & Arab coalition planes bombed and ISIS militants attacked

Kobane in Syria before the bombing of the city — Kobani in Syria before the bombing of the city

—//—

Postscript 2020

It has been nearly half a decade since I wrote this and still, Australian’s continue to mistreat refugees escaping from the horrors from which young Aylan and his family fled. His image touched the world, yet the refugee situation has worsened. In the two years, that followed 8,500 people drowned in the Mediterranean, 1,150, were children “. In October of 2019, Reuters announced “More than 1,000 migrants and refugees have died in the Mediterranean Sea this year, the sixth year in a row that this “bleak milestone” has been reached, the United Nations said on Tuesday.” And what of the memory and impact of Aylan? I have only this illustration to say everything I need to.

Save

Casting Light on Marriage

August 16, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 3 Comments

The Barrier's to entry, religious or Legal? — The Barriers to entry, religious or legal?

An associate of a friend (I’ll call him “Rus” not because that is his name, but I don’t what to be talking about him long-handedly throughout) said recently in a FB post. “I think the Church NEEDS to make marriage a Christian rite only. Let’s call it not a marriage but a Holy Union. Let others marry. It is a union between a man, a woman and God. If you don’t love God, no Holy or Spiritual Union.” I have read many other similar sentiments in the Christian community that hold to a belief that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ and somehow belongs to the Church. Still, there is a dominant fear that the word “marriage” is being taken away from Christians who want an exclusive license to the word “marriage”. “Rus” is at least prepared to concede that “marriage” was probably not the term they wanted to hold onto, whereas many Christian apologists think otherwise. Hanging onto “marriage” allows the privilege and first right of access. Access which needs to be jealously guarded against the infidels who would spoil it with their desire to put the word “gay” in front of it. There is this irrational fear that accepting “gay” in front would somehow weaken “marriage”. Seriously? That institution is under severe attack by heterosexuals themselves. Misogyny, Divorce, the rising tide of domestic violence, and abuse of children are all symptomatic of heterosexual marriage and yet allowing someone else to participate, is going to ruin your marriage? If that is your concern, perhaps you need to question about what you think is “marriage”. It’s between two people. You want to invite the rest of the world in and then perhaps you’re looking for trouble? As one young American said: “They are dwelling in the false dilemma universe of “if they get something that [that in no way takes it from me], then I will feel like I had it taken from me.” A piece of twisted logic from conservative thinkers, although this is how it comes across to the rest of us.

Marriage or something else?

The religious sanctity of “marriage” is an intriguing argument by the church because it assumes that “marriage” was their idea, and that has purely religious origins, which have been co-opted by the secular. I suspect that even “Rus” realised that was not an argument he was likely to win on evidence which is why he opted for calling it something else. Perhaps the term of a more biblical origin you may be looking for is “Yoked”. “yoked” was biblically speaking a term well-associated with husbandry, frequently used metaphorically for subjection in the old testament, but used differently by Christ in Matthew 11:29. Christ referred to “My yoke” which therein meant “the service of God as I teach it”. “Yoked” takes on a New Testament subjection such as epitomised by Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands…” It is later used in the more commonly known quote of 2 Corinthians 6:14 – “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers…” and not to be confused with “Yoked with an Unbeliever” which was a short story by Rudyard Kipling (a favourite author of mine when I was young). Many a Christian apologist has used Yoked as a reference, to what later in the 13^th century, became the word “Marriage”. In these centuries the word “mariage” (from which the word “marriage” was later derived) occurs in Middle English in the mid 12^th century. There was a slightly older term marier (to marry) from the French. There was a not dissimilar older Latin term maritare meaning to provide with a husband or wife. The reality was, that aside from the sideline mention of celebrations or feasts duly associated nowhere is the joining or being yoked to another defined in the biblical literature. Garry Wills points out “The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs”. Everything we do by way of ceremony into which the church has adopted a role of significance in western culture was developed well after the “fact”, by a matter of centuries. So, NO, marriage is not an exclusively Christian term, and the Church does not hold some “right of access” to it.

The DOMA Ruling

Icons from one of the countries we normally follow. — Icons from one of the countries we normally follow?

In truth, contemporary marriage in a church is not, of itself, recognised legally as such. Allow me to explain what I mean by that. One of the interesting aspects on the American DOMA hearings that resulted in marriage equality being recognised in the USA was the confusion that occurred on the very first day of the hearings over an assumption that we, in Australia, also make.

On the first day of hearings taking place before the United States Supreme Court, the justices found out that both religion and religious establishments have nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage or for that matter, marriage at all. Gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto had to point out the rather obvious to the justices that, “When people get married in a church, it isn’t recognised by the government without the legal documentation”. And guess what? It is the same system here. Marriage is a civil and legal state that exists between two people (OK, … in Australia the two people are not the same gender even though the majority of Australians would support it – 72% actually).

Even in the Christian community support is at an all time high. — Even in the Christian community support is at an all-time high.

You don’t need the Church. Marriage is not about the church! The church provides a ceremony, it gives spiritual and moral guidance, but technically the perspective of the State is that the Church does not marry you legally. The phrase in marriage law is, “solemnise” not “ratify”. That document you sign in the middle of the service is what gives you the legal status – not the service, not the church. Now, under the “eyes of God” (well that is a different series of discussions for a later article) but the marriage equality lobby is not after being “yoked”, “joined”, “holy union-ed”, or approved of by the Church. They want the right to be legally “married” in the State.

Against and vaguely against

The religious and conservative rejection of “marriage equality” divides into two camps. There are those who would accept same-sex unions provided there was a differentiation of terminology and/or celebration to segregate the two. And there are they who believe “marriage” is exclusively between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is unacceptable, as is their access to “marriage”. But is “marriage” a Christian thing? The “marriage” ceremony, by all accounts, wasn’t practised till the 9th Century, and it wasn’t until the 12th Century that a priest became involved and not until the 13th Century that priests took charge of it.

Bills before Parliament

Garry Wills also the question “why if you accept gay unions would one oppose gay marriage?” This is a sensible and logical question, but It does not take into account the misconceptions promoted politically (and religiously) about the transitions from “union” to “marriage”. In the Australian on July 7^th, there was an article that began “Senator David Leyonhjelm’s 2014 “freedom to marry” bill seeks to mollify conservatives by allowing civil celebrants to refuse to marry homosexual couples on conscience grounds.” It was an article that spoke about the Presbyterian Church desiring to withdraw the “whole church from the Marriage Act” if same-sex marriage was the legalised. The perception is that the Church is under some form of threat of having to perform same-sex marriages against their conscience. Except for the Bill I am about to discuss, it isn’t.

Leyonhjelm’s bill is a threat to the church’s conscience because Leyonhjelm wants to add the following to section 71 of the Act. “(3) If a chaplain refuses to solemnise a marriage because the marriage is not the marriage of a man and a woman, the chaplain must, if possible, substitute another chaplain who is willing to solemnise the marriage.” In short, it does exactly what the church should be worried about, as it removes their freedom to simply say “NO” as the onus is on the church to find a substitute chaplain.

On the other hand, the Marriage Equality Bill 2015 as put forward by Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek is merely an amendment to the 1961 Marriage Act to define marriage as a union of two people and to ensure that ministers of religion are not bound to solemnise marriage by any other law. The definition of marriage becomes “marriage means the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Essentially it is about the reference that “a man and a woman”, be substituted with the term “two people” and the term “husband”, become “partner”. (Which is what it was before John Howard changed in 2004.) Unlike Leyonhjelm’s proposal, there is no onus on the church at all to do anything different from what they have always done. I have read both legal bills before parliament, and the Marriage Equality Bill is way more respecting of the conservative Christian view that is the already deeply conservative Senator David Leyonhjelm. Curious!? So essentially the statement the Australian newspaper leads off with – that purports to assume Leyonhjelm’s bill will “mollify conservatives” – should frankly be recognised as patently untrue. On the other hand, Labor’s Marriage Equality Bill preserves the Church’s sensitivities and rights of refusal. This is the bill, they that accept a gay legal union – be ye within or without the church – should be backing.

Legal protections of Marriage Equality

Much injustice to be resolved normally shoved under the water

As for the reasons why one should consider same-sex marriage in terms of what protections it may provide, I will send you to my article on “Marriage by Definition”. You will find a list of the issues of marriage equality would definitively resolve. I won’t repeat myself. You will also find there discussed the darker side of what Old Testament “Biblical” marriage involved.

Between a Man and a Woman

Yes, it is about the Children and we should protect them by supporting their parents. — Yes, it is about the Children, and we should protect them by supporting their parents.

Let’s consider the other ideology that has been demonising gays for centuries and simply refuse to share “marriage” often under the presumption that marriage equality will somehow affect heterosexual marriage and ruin it for life. Now there is the extreme view of the Canberra Couple who were so disturbed that they said they would prefer to be divorced than see same-sex marriage allowed. I am not even going to entertain that nonsense, and I think that the couple has been given quite enough “hell” over that irrational response. I’d like to talk to the more rational concerns raised by Rev Dr Micheal Jensen who wrote clearly in “The Drum” why he holds “the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman”. He upholds the usual, “it’s for the children” argument which I dealt with in my “sex” article as well as my “letter to Eric Abetz”. Read these and save me from repeats. Jensen also produced an argument based around the terms of “equality” and that a redefined marriage will not be “marriage” as we know it. Well .. yes … I think that is the point of it. It has changed historically, and it is continuing to change, which Rev Jensen doesn’t want. He wants the changes to stop. He is comfortable with what it has evolved into today.

Equality & Equivalence

Defining "equality" should be just and fair. — Defining “equality” should be just and fair.

His point on equality is pretty obscurely expressed, but I think the point was that equality is not equivalency. By this, I believe he means that providing “marriage” to different people with different relationships and different means by which they produce and raise children does not constitute “equality” and so, therefore, it is not about “equality”. The argument is that a relationship between two same-sex partners is fundamentally different on a physical and perhaps psychological basis than a relationship between heterosexual couples and therefore not equal, and cannot be treated as such. Technically there are circumstances where that is correct, but primarily we are playing with syntax here, and the subject is; people’s lives. Same-sex couples can and do operate on the same psychologically basis as heterosexual couples. They are, after all, both human. Disallowing access to the legal protections of marriage is discriminatory and unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. Gay couples produce and raise children, they live together, grow old and participate in the community as couples and families. Same-sex couples – contrary to the frequent statement that they don’t – do give birth – or provide the seed for their children, adopt and raise children, in the same manner, a heterosexual couple does. The attempt to differentiate by the production of Children as something that renders them unequal is nonsensical and fictitious. Heterosexuals raise children of their own, not their own, adopted, from past marriages, previous indiscretions or partners, use IVF (the most significantly googled phrase in Australia) or passed on from being orphaned. And guess what? So do Gay couples. And guess what? Their kids are fine and in fact in many cases better than fine. In fact, if you want evidence then you need to look no further than the findings of Dr Bronwyn Harman’s 5-year research project into family structures. ^*1*

We are all Human what makes us better is our kindness.

Dr Harman’s research showed that LGBTQI families (inclusive of children) rated as “happier” than most family structures existing in Australia. At least these children are wanted, which is more than I can say for the offspring of some heterosexual couples. And guess what? The Australian Government research has compiled innumerable papers that confirm this. We aren’t really all that different. We use the term Equality loosely, yes. I would concede that. But the “equality” we should be talking about is the form of it that seeks an end to discrimination. That is what is meant by “equality”. Yeah, they are different. So are a lot of people. It’s called humanity. Get over it!

History’s True Tales

The Reverend Jensen went onto say, “It is the meaning of marriage that emerges from all human cultures as they reflect on and experience what it is to be male and female. It is only in the last 15 years that anyone has seriously thought differently.” Which is not at all dissimilar to what Abbott said in an ABC interview, “Prior to that, it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone in our culture and civilisation that marriage was not between a man and a woman.”

Really what exactly has changed since Gay Marriage has been accepted elsewhere? — Really what exactly has changed since marriage equality has been accepted elsewhere?

That isn’t the truth expressed by either man. “Marriage by definition” has changed radically and in previous civilisations gay marriage, polygamy and what we would today, call incest and child sexual abuse, featured very strongly as a societally acceptable definition for “marriage”. (I have outlined a number of these changes in my post “Marriage by definition”.) Voodoo is a religion that celebrates gay unions. It wasn’t that long ago that the Mormon churches were actively polygamous. “Gay marriage” has been a feature of Canadian society for a decade. [And hasn’t that lead to polygamy, people wanting to marry children, their dogs, camels, etc., etc.? …. Well NO actually … It hasn’t!] So much time and effort are spent in speculative arguments about what a slippery slope this legislative move is! Yet everyone doing so never points to entire countries that have had the legislative acceptance in place for years and says “See what is happening there!!” Because … guess what … it isn’t! Such things are already illegal even if you attempted to define marriage in such a way that could permit them. Marriage is a legal contract and as such children and animals cannot commit to legal agreements. Vast areas of the Law would need to be changed for anyone to slip down that particular slope. That any politician – particularly one with a legal background, such as Eric Abetz – would propose this as a possibility is being deliberately misleading and patently untruthful.

Since the Dawn of Civilisation

SO, No, “marriage” has been a concept in a state of flux since the dawn of civilisation as to who it involves, what sex they are, how old they are, how many it involves. And YES, it has been an issue people have discussed for the last 15 years, in our culture and our civilisation. It has been on the agenda since before at least two Roman Emperors we know of were in same-sex unions. It was on the agenda through the middle ages when a priest at a small chapel married Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain. Also in the 1960’s in Australia with the ACT Homosexual Law Reform Society and the 1970’s when Richard Baker and James McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license while we in Australia formed the Melbourne based “Society Five “gay rights organisation. It was still on the agenda in the 1990’s when California was considering a bill to permit same-sex marriage, and Australia was passing the 1994 Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act.

Abbott objects - still the negative Man saying "no"! — Abbott objects – still the negative man saying “No”!

The recent history in the 21^st Century I am sure most are at least aware of (well aside from Tony Abbott and Rev Jensen). Precisely at what point in time Rev Jensen and Tony Abbott, were we not dealing with these issues? I do get that the Conservative elements would rather it was swept back under the carpet and would conveniently go away (in the manner in which Tony Abbott described it as “the fashion of the moment“) but … sorry, it is all out in the open now. Deal with it! Stop avoiding it!

No claim, no fame, no reason, no rhyme

Summarising so far: The church has no specific claim on “marriage” by way of language or law. Marriage has been changing as an institution from one generation to the next. Same-sex marriage existed in ancient civilisations as it does in numerous countries around the world today. Civilisations and countries have not collapsed into marital anarchy because of it. Under all proposed legislation (bar Leyonhjelm’s bill) the church retains its rights to object or accept consecrating a couple’s union, as they always have. There other words and phrases available to the church if it wants to be “yoked” to separating themselves from the world to hold their private club of holy marriages (or whatever they want to call them).

But God Said…

There is still, our mate “Rus” whose objection to it boiled down to: “God abhors homosexuality among other things. To Him, it is an abomination.” This is a commonly held view amongst conservative Christians, and I suspect one that is not going anywhere fast. So where does this come from? In the Catholic Canon and prayer book, there is nothing that forbids marriage between persons of same sex. Nowhere in the Constitution and Canons – the laws of the Episcopal Church or its Book of Common Prayer is marriage equality rejected or forbidden. It is simply never mentioned for two reasons.

it was simply not anticipated.
while “sodomy”^*2* has long been identified as the most heinous of sins by some cardinals there has always been a long history in the secret lives of the Vatican’s cardinals, bishops and monks in which homosexual traditions have been a matter of historical record.

So in the interests, of not offending the hypocrisy of the church, it is not surprising it is never mentioned. Negative attitudes to homosexuality have been in the church since the teachings of the early church fathers following the Roman emperor’s conversion to Christianity. It stood in contrast to long-held Greek and Roman attitudes towards same-sex relations, who also felt it was permissible between an adult and a prepubescent or adolescent male. Rebuking those who indulged in debauching of boys was common in the early church history even though it was practised in secret by some clergy. Back then and even today (with exceptions of some sections of the Catholic clergy) it was/is seen by some of the church and most civilised societies as reprehensible. The practice by Catholic priests in our lifetime has drawn revulsion, criticism and legal redress. I need to stress that marriage equality is not a descent into that perversion!! I am only going down this dark alleyway to help you understand the historically biblical objections to what we think are references to “homosexuality” in the New Testament. This distinction was not although, as obvious in the context of the history in which it was written.

But Jesus said …

Christ's words about the homosexuals in our community ... Oh! — Christ’s words about the homosexuals in our community … Oh!

Let’s get one issue out of the way. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Sorry, he didn’t! Big disappointment to the conservative Christian lobby, but there you go. So where do you turn? Classic Old Testament stuff: Sodom and Gomorrah. I often find myself wondering if the people who pull this one out, have ever actually read the story. Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about sexual abuse. When someone rocks up at your door wanting to break it in, to have their way with you or your guests, it’s not about love or sex; it’s about abuse, it’s about rape. If what happened to Lot and his family happened today outside your house, you would phone the police, scream for your neighbours to help and load your shotguns. It is not about sexual preferences it is about RAPE and ABUSE. It’s sure as hell not about LOVE – gay or otherwise! Read the damn text!

But Leviticus said …

Interestingly the first five books of the Bible declares that God apparently hates a lot of things. The book of early Jewish Law is certainly a prime example. Leviticus 20:13 doesn’t say you should stop “Gay” marriage it says you should kill “Gay” people. So unless you are willing to follow through on that (and I would hope you aren’t), you are not compliant with your literalistic biblical instruction. Of course, the issue then becomes, which Law do you follow because wasn’t one of the Ten Commandments mentioned in Exodus 20 Verse 13, “Thou shalt not kill!”? So which law holds dominance? Are the instructions of Leviticus a priestly code emphasising ritual, legality and moral practices of that age and at a time when they were a bunch of nomad refugees? Were they trying to cobble together legalistic order to keep themselves safe and together on a journey that would take a generation to complete? Could these very laws be an example of these men’s natural inclination to disobey the primary commandments and are there to show us how quickly men go astray from the commands of God? Or were these rather beliefs or commandments that were to travel down through all history? Which laws were written by men and which by God? Does “killing people” because of issues of sexuality, trump the commandment brought down by Moses from Mt. Sinai, that says one should “not kill”. Which Law was meant to last? If you choose one, then what does that say about the impermanence of the other?

Let’s face it there are lots of those sort of things in the early biblical literature. When I raised this with “Rus”, his reply was “Death meant “dead to God” not literally put to death”. What?? The Israelites have just made a harsh Exodus across a desert, having escaped tyrannical enslavement in Egypt where they were treated as Slaves to be whipped, beaten, used and often brutally killed. They had survived this and their journey to reach Mt. Sinai. Death was something that accompanied their life in proportions probably unthinkable to contemporary western man. When it is written “they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”, I find it very hard to believe this ragtag battered and bruised nation acclimatised to bruising and brutal violence as a part of their daily life, decided this was more of a spiritual denial of access to the holy aspects of life.

This, by the way, was not the only crime you could be put to death for according to Leviticus. These being Adultery, prostitution, various forms of sexual deviancy, practising magic, theft, murder, cursing your father or mother, and blasphemy. And, heavens you did not want to be a Priest’s child who had contravened the law because being burnt alive is not a nice way to die. So, NO, “Rus”, I don’t see it as “spiritual death” at all. But OK, “Rus”, if sanitising “death threats” by believing them to be more psychic than real, helps you to sleep better at night … Fine.

Returning to my earlier point. Given the conflict between Laws of priests in Leviticus verses, the Laws of Mt Sinai handed down by Moses earlier in Genesis, which should have been followed? Should you even entertain the notion that Leviticus represents any reasonable lasting grounds for objecting to marriage equality in the 21st Century or was it an example of how completely and quickly misled men can become?

Today’s Samaritans?

This was Israel’s laws at a brutal and unrelenting part of their history. (Somewhat like today some might suggest … but I digress.) History is about change and development. Laws change, people change, society changes and perhaps, what was once the “Samaritan” that Jesus spoke against being discriminatory against, are now another group of folks in the LGBTQI community. Dare I suggest that the Bible is not a book of rigid, legalistic laws but guidance for a changing world. Christian communities need to grow with it and create our own “biblical” stories of compassion and love. Perhaps I am getting sidetracked here? Back to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

But Paul said …

Then there is the famously picked Romans 1:26-27 used by the entire anti-gay Christian brigade: “For this reason, God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

You need to remember that the Jew’s considered a child of 13 an adult. Recall also what I said about Greek and Roman attitudes to sexual abuse earlier. This was a letter being written to the Roman church. Now read above again and tell me what it is clearly about, in the context of the society in which they lived? The standards for legal consent to sexual relations are now sixteen, meaning these historical standards would nowadays fall into the category of pedophilia.

Perhaps not such a subject of the Bible as we might have once thought? — Perhaps homosexuals were not such a subject of the Bible at all, as we might have once thought?

Then we go to the next prime choice for this argument, 1 Corinthians 6:9 for which numerous translations of the Bible speak of homosexuals or homosexuality being something that denies people access to God. There it is explicitly stated. “Bingo”, yell the conservative Christians! Gotcha! … EXCEPT … sorry, … but how do I break this to you gently? Homosexuality as a word is first found in print in 1869 in a German pamphlet and is not found in use in English till 1892, and it had a different meaning. It wasn’t till 1929 it was first recorded as a Noun with its current meaning and as an adjective in 1933.

Who were the real sodomites?

Forgiveness requires repentance and that requires the truth to be revealed. — Forgiveness requires repentance, and that requires the truth to be revealed.

Perhaps you might find in the original text, it said “sodomites”, as it, like the well used Jude 1:7 where it references the same history from which the term arises. In case you missed that paragraph, … well, I have already dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s all about sexual abuse, not Love. And if you don’t know the difference between abuse and love, you should probably never marry or have children. Was “sodomy” as it was defined then, how we define “sodomy” now? “Marriage” as a contractual exchange for property, provision of a dowry and rights of heirs is not what “marriage” is today either. If this 2000-year-old reference to “sodomy” is about the abuse, rape, sexual assault perpetrated by the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, then this has nothing to do with “marriage equality” or “homosexual love” for that matter. In fact, it better represents a condemnation of these acts of “sodomy”/abuses prevalent amongst the Catholic Church’s clergy (and yes, I know other denominations did it too). It should properly be understood as a rebuke for the church’s position of supporting, moving and hiding its priestly abusers from the consequences of their “sin”. I am sure Cardinal Pell would disagree with me.

But the Church celebrated …

So if the alleged references to “homosexuality” in the Bible – 1900 years before the word was coined – were about “gay love” and not actually “sodomy” (defined as I am suggesting, like abuse, rape and pedophilia, as we know it), then there is a question that has to be asked. Why are there dozens of records from the early church which recorded ceremonies where two men were joined in unions? These are revealed by historian, John Boswell, who published a book in 1994 called “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” based on his earlier publication from the 1980’s called “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality”. The issue is the course that it is not only “sodomy” that has changed its meaning in the modern world, but also “marriage”. You can read more about it in the article, Gay marriage in the year 100 AD.

The Letter or the Spirit of the Law?

So unless you’re going on a right-wing rage-fuelled mass killing spree for all the crimes committed in modern society (and I think there have been way too many of them in this era) on the basis that “God says in Leviticus” you should kill these people (in contravention of the don’t kill commandment in Genesis), just perhaps, you are open to a “tiny” bit of “wriggle room” in your thinking? Perhaps you will then be open to the “Spirit” rather than the “Letter of the Law”? (If indeed Leviticus was an example of Law and not an example of rebellion.)

You know the Spirit I am talking about, the one Christ suggested was based on “Love”. Marriage Equality is about the freedom to be choosing who you love and if “love” means something – and for some strange reason my conception of Christianity has just a tiny bit to do with “love” – then perhaps there is room in your hearts to let go of your prejudice. Then the game is open to conceding that “marriage” is a changing celebration and realising how much that word has changed both biblically and socially.

But I like my Bigotry

If you want to maintain justifying prejudice, biblically, then you are set. It’s not hard to do. You cherry pick a few verses, back it with a bit of good Old Testament judgement, you ignore completely the culture, previous laws and historical perspective, you redefine the ancient language with contemporary meaning that the original words never had, and you draw inferences that aren’t naturally there … and you are set. It doesn’t require you to struggle with your faith to search for the light at the end of the tunnel. Stay where you are. It’s comfortable in the dark, it’s cool, it’s easy to deal with, and there is not much to which to see or respond. Facing the world in the light of a society in flux, in change, in tackling hard questions about how people love and give love and express love, is probably just too hard. Stay with the mushrooms, don’t be the salt.^*3*

My reasons why

I am an ex-theological student, ex-parish elder and ex-member of a church which married my wife and I. We participate in another denomination’s church these days and not because we have any disrespect for the former – we have just moved on. We wrote our marriage service over a decade back. We celebrated in a Church that (as it turned out) held only one wedding service in that entire year. Ours! We deliberately changed the phrase “man and a woman” to “two people” in our vows, officiated by a minister I had known for two decades. Four men stood beside us as we made our vows. Two of them were my best friends from college days; the other two were a gay couple (my wife’s best friends) that over a decade later are still together. They had been together for more than a decade before we married. It was for them that my wife wanted to have our vows changed from the standard. We still often talk and visit one another even though we live in different cities nowadays. We encourage each other in our respective relationships as is the promise they made at our wedding. They listen to us tackle the daily struggle and joys of relationship issues, and we do the same for them. Love holds us altogether irrespective of our differing sexualities. Perhaps one day we can stand beside them as they take their vows and make promises to them to uphold their marriage and I would be proud and honoured to do so.

———//———

Footnotes.

* Sun Herald for August 16^th on page 15 reported on research by Dr Bronwyn Harman, at Edith Cowan University (ECU)’s School of Psychology and Social Sciences.
* I put “sodomy” in quotes because what that word means depends on what era you are discussing.
* I am deliberately cryptic here as Salt is used allegorically by Christ and I am trying to induce some thinking amongst some of the more theologically minded reading this.

———//———

Post-Script

It is July 2018 and Australians have won the battle for Marriage Equality in the parliament after a long, protracted battle with undoubtedly many casualties. Nevertheless, it is done, and nothing that the religious conservatives feared has come to pass.

One thing that is important to myself and my wife has, although. On a cool Saturday afternoon in June 2018 when in the halls of Montsalvat in Melbourne, a celebrant asked myself and my wife, “Who gives these two men to be married?” My wife and I replied simultaneously, “I do!“. Dressed in a white suit, not unlike the one his dad was wearing, I watched with pride as my small son stepped forward as “ring bearer” to hand the rings to our two friends and spoke a simple but endearing wish to both men. After two decades of being together, the two men who affirmed our vows beside us a decade and a half before could finally marry. It was my privilege to be a part of their wedding, and a long-held ambition, if you have read what I wrote above. As darkness descended on Montsalvat and the joyous sounds of over a hundred guests revelling in the final victory of equality and love, one thought repeated in my mind. “Mission accomplished!”

P.P.S.

If you are at all curious still as to the path that a man of faith may have trod in his “Damascus journey” to arrive at this point of enlightenment, read this link.

Save

Marriage by Definition

August 12, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 3 Comments

I’d like to commence this line of argument by acknowledging a philosophical opponent to marriage equality who – according to his face-book profile – has the nomenclature of “Greg Rams”. I have argued with or responded to opponents whose arguments are fallacious and absurd such as Senator Eric Abetz’s article or fabricated like the “natural marriage” petition being distributed in Mackellar, via Parliamentary Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop in recent times. Greg actually presented a researched argument that made me “work”. While we sat on opposing philosophical seats in regards progress on marriage equality – initially I assumed pretentiousness based on previous experience with others and a misunderstanding of his perspective. Instead, I grew to respect and find merit in his opposition even in disagreement. As such, I quote him directly herein. Having said that, I want to explore the definition historically of marriage that we ended up discussing and that has inspired this post.

There is very naturally, an instinct to acquiesce to the biblical origins of marriage in the Western world. Intriguingly the definition of marriage from a biblical perspective has undergone radical and – by today’s standards – disturbing changes, specifically concerning its early history. I will although, come back to these later.

It is the contemporary historical changes (i.e. the last couple of centuries) that have and seen the most radical changes in its purpose and meaning for western society. Prior to that in Western and Eastern cultures, a marriage ceremony served a purpose for the elite of society and was rarely entered into amongst the hoi polloi. In fact, in many ancient cultures, there is no evidence of marriage ceremonies, but rather at best a contractual agreement often involving money, power and survival. In fact, the early Church had no marriage ceremony until the 9th century and didn’t include a priest till the 12th Century. Peg Helminski’s blog on “Redefining Marriage” has a brilliant opener (right from the first sentence) about how marriage was defined.

In the beginning…

“In the beginning, marriage was a relationship between two men. A man exchanged goods or services with a girl’s father to procure a virgin bride who likely became one of several wives. This way, he could assure himself that any children he supported held valid claim to his property. Yes, marriage began as a business transaction to assure male property rights. Often, marriage provided other benefits; increasing the family labour force, acquiring a trade agreement or securing a political alliance.”

Until the 18th century, western society continued to view “marriage” as a property settlement issue and to frame it in the terms the famous jurist William Blackstone, gave us: “By marriage, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.” Is it no wonder that by the late 18th century the analogy of “slavery” to define a woman’s compliance with the terms of marriage was invoked by both English and European women.

The Victorian passion of the adultery — The Victorian passion for closeted adultery

It was only historically recently, in the 19th century, that there slowly emerged a representation of marriage as a romanticised concept by women, and even occasionally, men. Prior to these centuries, before the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, men found more passion in adultery and friendship, than in marriage. Eventually the relationship of marriage moved from the concept of a property settlement – often not between direct parties to the marriage – to involve courtships between the actual participants in the marriage. Although, always encompassed within the patriarchal confines of western or eastern civilisations desire for men to hold the primary authority within the relationship. Historically, it was capitalism and its invocation of motivations for inspiring men to don their battle apparatus for “war” or “work”, that was significantly responsible for redefining what “marriage” was.

The Capitalist need for “romance”.

Manipulating the Fear of the enemy on your doorstep

In a world of increasing production and the need to protect the State, in western economies, it was necessary to convince otherwise authoritarian, independent and autonomous men to risk their lives in defence of the State. Patriotism by itself, was never as strong a motivator, unlike the perception – built by the State’s propaganda – that men were defending private interests, property, domestic relationships and dependants.

Hence the old catch cry of the “enemy” advancing on your farm or home or even hiding under your bed ready to spring upon your family and do them ill. Still very much a tactic used in contemporary Australian political manipulations, as seen by the concentration of dialogue and finance, dedicated to the apparent threat of “jihadist” terrorism from overseas. Even though it has resulted – in the last century – in so few lives lost in Australia, that its real affect is negligible by comparison with any other rarely occurring event that results in loss of Australian lives. ^{But I divert from my subject …}

Capitalism also required increasing growth in production and economic output by encouraging men to slave their days away for their corporate masters in support of their family. Capitalism required the formerly autonomous man, who held his family as little more than chattels he owned and could dismiss, to develop emotional ties and motivation. These were targeted towards providing for the continuance of the family, depending on always, upon his work and earning capacity to survive. Incentivising a man to work relentlessly towards greater prosperity for the sake of his family, needed that family, to be something more than private chattels. Marriage had to be redefined in terms of emotional commitments by the individuals. Thus did a societal impetus, egged on by the propaganda of the age, begin to redefine marriage again so that men, women and their children played a role in the extension of capitalist western society. To quote the series on Marriage and Women by cyber parents : “Doing it for my family” thus produced the perfect capitalistic male and the perfect supporting cast “his women and children.”

Feminine independence.

One of the threats to “traditional marriage” (the sale and subservience of women) was the emerging capacity for women’s independence, from the economic domination of men in marriage. This began in the Western world during the industrial revolution, when the textile mills recruited thousands of women into the workforce. While certainly the wages paid were minuscule – in comparison to that paid to their fathers and husbands – it did provide for the first time, freedom from the controlling influences of the patriarchal oppression. Henry Ford’s decision in the early 1900s to commence playing his workers “a fair wage” – including some (but not all) of the women who worked for him – in order to starve off the turnover of his staff. It became, unexpectedly, the impetus for significant social change. [But please let’s not pretend it was for Ford’s claimed altruism so his workers could afford his cars.] ^{Diverting again…}

The threat propaganda to the ones back home

Children's participation in the rise of the bond market — Children’s participation in the rise of the bond market

Fortunately for capitalism, that social change was effective in motivating men to enter the First World War to be seen to be protecting the dependants back home from the “Gerrys” who would otherwise be climbing up from beneath their beds. With women acquiring the means for increasing independence, the patriarchal model of control of the family unit was under threat. Men had to “step up” to demonstrate that they were willing to “fight” for this new definition of “marriage” in the post-industrialised world. [Certainly didn’t the war propaganda machine milk that one!]

Women’s empowerment and, ultimately, social and economic independence came through the feminist campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries. Marriage as an instrument of an expression of “love” – as opposed to it’s far longer history of ownership, inheritance and power – is a very recent reinvention of the concept, historically speaking. The idea of “marriage” has always been an evolving and developing concept. Holding onto a particular view of loving heterosexual marriage, needs to consider the possibility that it reflects that you are a product (or victim) of your current cultural conditioning. One that was built on an older background underlying your current culture, fed from capitalist manipulations that probably pre-date you. It is a view that inherently neglects or denies the reality – that as a concept – “marriage” as we know it, is a recent reinvention. In truth, marriage has had a far longer history as a tool of patriarchal oppression, ownership, violence and power.

Heterosexual advantage

The shifting perceptions of the Sanctity of Marriage

Towards the end of the 20th and certainly into the 21st century the battle lines have changed about how we as a society define the word “marriage” and who we might concede it is available to. In recent history the non-heterosexual community has raised the societal consciousness that “marital rights” have been denied as a choice. Despite there being a growing and now wide acceptance in the 21st century for gay couples and their families ( including children) to have an established presence. It has although, a limited legal recognition in Australia, and we have continued to deny legal marital choice. Across the globe, Marriage Equality has recently produced significant global headlines with the decision by the American judiciary and the referendum in Ireland. So where other democracies in the western world have ceased to deny this marital choice, in Australia it has continued to demonstrate its recalcitrance.

Australia's Recalcitrance — Australia’s Recalcitrance

As the Libertarian associate with whom I had previously argued, pointed out, the legal protections for de facto relationships in Australia are also applicable to gay relationships in theory, although, unfortunately not so much in practice. The issue of evidence necessary to establish that a homosexual relationship exists has impact on access to numerous legal rights and recognition. These are of course is readily available to legally married partners with a marriage certificate. These access limitations – and while some of them may indeed be provided for through the legal protection afforded to de facto relationships – in practice are still subject to social bias and hostility within the more conservative community that often limits (sometimes “illegally”) access to the following:

Right to marry / right to divorce
Hospital visitations
Child custody rights
Adoption rights
Much injustice to be resolved normally shoved under the water

Parenting rights
Automatic inheritance
Divorce protections
Employment equality
Immigration law
Medicare
Retirement plans
Social security benefits
Survivor benefits
Freedom of gender expression
Spousal and child support
Federal taxes / joint taxes
Legal protection from gender-identity-based discrimination
Exemption from property tax upon death of a spouse
Legal protection from discrimination based on sexuality
Health insurance continuation of health coverage
Medical decision-making power on behalf of a spouse
Legal protection from housing discrimination
Right to free expression and free association
Right to medial coverage and safe access to care
Standing to sue for wrongful death of a spouse
Access to equal education
Access to family insurance policies
Domestic violence protections
Rights to form a family

Now as my libertarian opponent with whom I have previously argued, rightly pointed out, some of these issues do have the protection of de facto relationship laws. But not all, and in Australia it is dependent on which state you live in as to what protections you can access and when you can access them. He also said of the list above: “There were other things you mentioned which are largely based on societies perceptions. Yes it would be good if society could see through these.” While I agree with him in principle, the predominant problem of course is, that the interface for access to these legal protections are often people. Individuals in society who quite frankly do not “see through these“. The dogmatic and disapproving front-line officials (egged on by our leadership examples of ultraconservative prejudice) instead present obstacles to access, built out of their own judgements against the LGBTQ community. Dubiously illegal and/or immoral, though it may be, it is the experience expressed anecdotally by friends frequently in their community.

De facto relationships are not married ones. For example, the 1942 Act that defines “de facto relationship” states: “De facto relationship means the relationship between two unrelated adult persons:

Who have a mutual commitment to a shared life, and
Whose relationship is genuine and continuing, and
Who live together, and
who are not married to one another.”

Interestingly I imagine any of us can envisage two people still being legally recognised as married but have none of the top three conditions being met.

But it is not merely about access to legal protections. One of the legal discriminations practised against the transgender community is the wilful intent to bring about the termination of a couple’s marriage irrespective of their wishes. The legal requirement that forces divorce upon a couple where one partner seeks to have their birth certificate ratified under their new gender assignment, is unnecessarily cruel as is the requirement to have undergone risky surgery to have their sex identified on their Government records. Legal “marriage equality” means these couple’s retain a marriage that continues to be legal and their choice.

Continuing patriarchal protectionism in the 21st century

If the concept of marriage has evolved to the point where it is acceptable to be the expression of consensual love between two parties, rather than an exchange of consideration and chattels, why indeed, is it only available where those two parties are of the opposite sex? In truth, it’s about continued protection of the patriarchal model. If you have not stopped and read the article by Peg Helminski by now, then I would suggest you do so. It will assist you to understand what it is “the male patriarch” is still committed to protecting for itself. I am not going into that here, as I think her article is excellently thought out and her blog should be read.

Married or Happy?

Why in the world does this particular word – “Marriage” – need to be guarded against being used by people who want to declare their love for one another? Especially in the midst of a particular demographic (i.e. Heterosexuals) who perchance treat it with the utter disrespect that they do? That disrespect emerges through rampant adultery, domestic economy abuse and the proliferation of divorce that permeates our western society! The flip side of the equation is indeed there are people who do honestly wish to treat marriage respectfully. Yet statistical inferences demonstrate that amongst heterosexuals in the western world the divorce rate has climbed, as has both the remaining number of unhappy marriages and the happiness of single women. In fact, “marriage” has garnered such a unpopular reputation that many women would rather raise children without the assistance of a male partner. The statistic on this used to be 37% in America, although with reduced support for single mothers, particularly under our LNP government, it is possible that Australian women are not following America’s lead in such huge numbers. It is true though that they are indeed still resisting entering matrimony. The resistance in Australia to entering into marriage – especially early on – and the rise of de-facto relationships may account for the fact that the crude divorce rate in Australia has dropped marginally. Add on to that, the issue of domestic violence associated with Australian marriages, and the very suggestion of “marriage” is suffering a massive “public relations” backlash. All of this leads one to the conclusion, that opening the definition of “marriage” to accept and provide access to the LGBTQ community might create a new and possibly positive paradigm. Although as Greg said to me: “Changing the definitions of words will not bring definitive change“. In fact the personal slogan he reiterated to me was: “To create equality via definition does not bring definitive equality.” While a logical truism, does that mean it is applicable. “Marriage” will indeed still suffer from the abuse the heterosexual community inflicts upon it. I do not, although, believe we should surrender hope for the idealistic potential of marriage but instead strive as a community to support those engaged in it as well as those who choose not to participate. In short, he may be right, but I hope he isn’t. In fact, given the positive direction “marriage” has been developing into over the last couple of centuries, there is good cause to hold out hope.

Holy marriage?

Heterosexuals respect for the “holy traditions” of marriage as were referenced by Senator Eric Abetz as existing over a “millennia and across civilisations” ignores the fact that what marriage is, is very different to what it was. [Incidentally historically his claim is incorrect as Gay marriage was very much a part of older civilisations, but never let it be said that the facts should get in the way of a good argument.] In truth “marriage” as we know it has neither traditions of a long history nor ones you could describe as terribly “holy”. Marriage is continually undermined by the hypocrisy in which so many of us fail to take seriously the legal or religious vows made as they exist now. That being: “a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life”. Indeed faithfulness to one’s partner and the longevity of the marriage relationship is often in short supply in contemporary society. Isn’t it about time that the definition became: “a union between a two people, to the exclusion of all others, for life“, as that will radically change the respect given to the institution and possibly even demonstrate that the people who have fought long and hard for the right to be married, actually may demonstrate more respect for the “holy traditions of marriage“. Certainly more than the particular group who have held exclusive access to it to date!

Religious obscuration

Of course for the religiously affiliated amongst us, there is the illusion fostered by the Church of what is known as a Biblical concept of marriage that many conservatives feel the need to defend. That particular theory also leans heavily towards the patriarchal model in which a woman surrenders herself to the will and authority of man. To counterbalance this position, the church goes to some length to point out it is commensurate upon the man to demonstrate love in the same way in which God does for the church and therefore not abuse his position of “authority”. [Yeah umm … good luck with that.] There is of course, a desire on the part of the churchgoing religious community, to avoid discussions in regards the Old Testament’s evolving view of marriage. The position adopted, is that the New Testament proclamations, override that of the Old Testament. This despite the claim by Christ that saw himself differently when he said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” That is not to say there are not reasons to justify overriding aspects of the Old Testament law, I am just saying that it is not as Black and White as some literalists would have you believe. Gray is the new Black or as the Apostle Paul said, “it is the spirit not the letter of the law”. Lets face it, if the church didn’t take that position, than what they would be left with as a definition of marriage? Certainly one that would have to include how radically and brutally offensive to the modern sensibility, the concept of Marriage was. If perhaps you don’t know what I’m talking about, I think I will leave it in the hands of the satire of Mrs. Betty Bowers, “America’s Best Christian”, who will explain it succinctly and brutally in her YouTube clip. <– Click anywhere on the previous sentence unless you are a Christian who is too easily offended (and don’t say you were not warned).

Knock, and the door will be opened!

“Marriage” by definition has, over the centuries, continued to evolve to be something more desirable and more inclusive for all. The path to “marriage equality” is a continuation of that trend for its ongoing evolution and improvement of society. If the LGBTQ community, can demonstrate to the heterosexual community – who have traditionally abused it – that marriage by definition should be positive and life affirming, then why should we deny them the opportunity to make it so. Australia needs to be open to the possibilities of a better definition of “marriage” that gives hope and strengthens commitment. Perchance the LGBTQ community may choose our 2nd hand, battered and bruised concept of “marriage”, and remake it into something we can look upon with pride. Perhaps then, we can actually put it back on the pedestal, that many have always imagined, that it sat on.

Halal

August 12, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Halal certification was initially introduced so companies could export products into Muslim countries. It was instigated by large corporations seeking to make money from food product! Not by Muslims, but by large food producing companies wanting to make a profit. Are people making money off it? What a surprise, we are after all a capitalist economy but is anyone yet beginning to see on what side of the “Coin” this is occurring???

Even Liberal Party stalwart, Malcolm Turnbull MP, in reply to a boycotter, has reiterated government support for halal certification. He said:

“halal certification or preparation in no way changes the quality or safety of the food.”
“halal certification and associated fees are not taxes.”
“The decision by a food company to meet halal requirements is a voluntary decision.“
“Halal certification is not required to be declared on the label.“

All the certification means is that Halal food has been blessed, killed and prepared according to a few particular specifications. Your food that you buy at the supermarket is killed and prepared according to a few particular specifications called health regulations. The Muslim regulations are not that dissimilar except for the religious blessings although one could produce an argument for finding food certification a form of secular blessing. And we all know how that certification has been going since lax labelling laws allow frozen berries to be brought in labelled “Made in Australia with local and imported ingredients”. Given Abbott’s enthusiasm for FTAs, they will weaken Australia’s ability to maintain its safety standards. Berries this year, rotten meat last year and the horse meat scandals from the year before and Soy milk before that. It strikes me that rigid food specifications are a good thing.

What really funds terrorism in the East.

The Jewish community has food prepared according to a few particular specifications; it is called kosher meals. They have been doing it for generations here in Australia. It hasn’t been as financially remunerative for food companies the way. Halal food has though. Do you think for a moment if someone could monetise the kosher market they wouldn’t? People making money out of Halal food is a point of attack? People make money off selling un-healthy MacDonald’s foods. Get some perspective! And if you are really genuinely concerned that your money may be spent on something that might end up in an overseas terrorist’s hands, then stop buying petrol. What do you think is funding ISIS?

Then there is they that claim that halal slaughter is crueller than normal slaughter. Look, I could never work in a Slaughter house irrespective of how animals are slaughtered. I do get the animal cruelty angle but unlike myself (Yes I am a vegetarian) people eat meat. It is a fact of life (and in this case death) Is Halal slaughter any crueller than “normal”? Apparently, the RSPCA doesn’t think so. Quoting from their site (because you probably won’t bother using the link I have provided):

“The main concern with halal slaughter is whether or not pre-slaughter stunning is used. In Australia, the national standard for meat production requires that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. The vast majority of halal slaughter in Australia (including at export abattoirs) complies with this standard, that is, all animals are stunned prior to slaughter. The only difference is that a reversible stunning method is used, while conventional humane slaughter may use an irreversible stunning method. The time to regain consciousness following a reversible stun may vary depending on the intensity of the stun. At Australian abattoirs, the aim is to ensure that reversible stunning is done in a way that depth of unconsciousness is sufficient to allow for the animal to bleed out and die before there is a chance of regaining consciousness.”

So exactly how does Halal or Kosher (which no one is carrying on about) food harm anyone? All this nonsense going to Bernardi is just feeding religious bigotry and has nothing to do with certification. References to Islam being a “medieval cult” or nonsense about how 2% of the population are about to convert our legal system to “sharia law” is completely off topic, irrelevant and not to mention absurd. (Bejesus, Abbott had over half the country behind him and can’t get half his laws passed. – sorry getting off point there) The religious hatred is a straw man argument to distract from what the inquiry is ñ in theory ñ supposed to be about – Certification for foods! What part of that don’t people understand? Quite a lot so it would seem.

Charlie Pickering on Cory Bernardi and The Anti-Halal Movement On ‘The Weekly’

While a healthy debate is always a way of thrashing ideas to the point that both sides will merely strengthen their resolve, comedy is a real ice breaker. If you are a supporter of the Halal investigation, then read and watch the clip associated with this story. Charlie Pickering went to town on Halal certification in a brilliant skit in “the Weekly”. If this post can’t help you then perhaps Charlie can.

Dear Eric

July 16, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 3 Comments

Dear Senator Eric Abetz,

A short while back now, you did countenance the idea in an article in the Canberra Times that Asian countries are against marriage equality. I did reply to your article there, but it was lost completely in the innumerable responses you already had so perhaps here I can address a few issues in the quiet of my site. While that applies to the governments of these countries, it is not so true of their populations. In fact in a repressive regime such as South Korea only two years ago over 47% of their population openly stated their views on this had changed in the last five years and by 2013 there were 57% of the folks surveyed that supported some manner of the legally recognised union. The interesting convergence of our government with theirs is an unwillingness to listen to the voice of their “constituents”. I find it a strange argument for an Australian political representative to make especially when it is mostly untrue as numerous surveys, and research centres are discovering. It almost suggests that the views you are representing are of external governments not the opinion of your people’s desires, in our country, that you were elected to serve! Instead, you find it necessary to consider other countries who don’t elect you because why …. they might not buy up all our mining rights and minerals, and land, and farms and houses? So perhaps I am a little behind in pointing this out, but you’re a senator of AUSTRALIA, not China!

Plebiscites

Now you want a plebiscite! I know polls can be inaccurate by a few percentile, plus or minus. It is fair to suggest that there is always elements of bias in the manner in which the data is collected that sways results in one way or another. Do you seriously think that this is a strategy that could reinforce your obviously personal viewpoint in the face of polls showing a 72% approval for legalisation from the Australian community? Who are you representing Senator Abetz? Your opinion, Asian governments or Australia? … and if our country, then perhaps, do you not wonder if a plebiscite is a losing argument also?

Polyamory?

The previous day in the media you argued that legalising marriage equality may “lead to polyamory”? If indeed allowing a change to the marriage act was a slide towards polygamy, why do you give so much support to our Asian neighbours, many of whom allow polygamy? They are already there, Eric! I would have thought we would prefer to align ourselves with other western countries like New Zealand, Canda, the UK, the US or Ireland ñ all of which have marriage equality. We certainly have aligned ourselves with these in the past, why change and move in with the polygamists now, Eric? I am confused by your allegiances, Eric?

For the sake of five words.

The legislative proposal is to change five words in the marriage act to make it gender neutral. That’s it. Nothing else! Do you not understand that accepting polygamy would require far greater changes in the Marriage Act? The changes for access to “lead[ing] to polyamory” would be far more than five words to make it gender neutral., That is all we are discussing here, making it gender neutral. Sliding down the “slippery slope” to bestiality, marring your direct family members, “polyamory”, or any manner of things you are suggesting it will lead to would require very significant changes to the Marriage Act! Probably a complete rewrite! You have degrees in law and arts, and yet forgive me if I am lead to wonder do you not understand how the law works, Senator Abetz? How is this a rational argument for someone of your legal background? Are you so desperate to resist this idea that you will clutch at any straws that fall from the top of your head?

Churches are not affected

How difficult is the fundamental message of Christianity to understand?

Ultimately, Senator, it’s about allowing a simple choice. It’s about two people (not multitudes) making decisions to stay together because they love doing so and having the state recognise it. Something many do already but which has no legal recognition. The change allows the churches to object to it as you feel “real Christians” should and not perform the ceremony at their discretion. Churches can still refuse to participate. That right is retained. Then there is the Presbyterian church saying they might refuse to perform any marriages if marriage equality goes ahead (also Page 2 & 19 of the SMH on July 6th, 2015). OK! Fine. Do they not understand that you have that absolute right now AND if the act is changed? It is merely about civil and legal recognition. Nothing more. You can still pronounce it as “evil”, still preach against it, still be bigots, still dislike it! It affords the two people the legal recognition of their relationship even if you don’t like or want it for yourself Senator Abetz!

LNP’s approach to Legislative change

It is such a small legislative change. But you and your colleagues appear to stuck on it. Morrison says he’s concerned about consulting a range of “stakeholders” to get their feedback. But he, in particular, will change other major pieces of legislations without consulting any “stakeholders” all the time. For example look at the major change to legislation your colleague Morrison put through before he moved portfolios. Not only did he not speak to stakeholders but he without reservation, used emotional blackmail on opposing senators to get draconian legislation designed to oppress entire communities housed in detention under our care! That was a major piece of legislation that effectively puts children in harm’s way and yet amazingly your next argument was about protecting children. I’m confused, Senator, as to what your party’s position on protecting children is?

Gay couples are already raising children

It would seem to me that protecting Children is a complete distraction, a “strawman” argument if you will. Children are not in the marriage vows! Marriage is not about children; it is about a relationship between two people. Children may result from that union, but marriage is about two adult people. A surprising discovery for many (especially the proponents against marriage equality) is, there are lots of married couples (older, infertile & simply not interested) that have a marriage that does not involve children at all. Another discovery for many is that Gay couples are already raising children. One of them is a fellow parliamentarian. OK, you and Penny Wong are not the best of friends, but you see and speak to her regularly. Let me repeat; Gay couples are already raising children. How exactly will resisting this legislative 5-word change provide greater protection for these kids? I can suggest some ways allowing it does protect children. In fact, it would ensure legal and social recognition of those children. It would protect from the legal discrimination frequently experienced in Gay relationships over inheritance and custody when one parent dies. It provides security for the children as it is more likely to reduce prejudice, stigma and discrimination against these families. How about considering protecting the children to the full extent of the Law by providing children of Gay couples the rights inherent in marriage under the Act? If you are truely concerned about children, then provide for the parents they have. You don’t get a second set of parents, you know, not unless adoption is involved. It would appear that there are more arguments that marriage equality is in the best interests of children being raised by same-sex couples. So your next line was ‘study after study’ had shown that children benefited from having a mother and a father. Although strangely that isn’t what Australian Government literary analysis reveals?

Studies supporting children

The trouble is that there are Australian studies (that’s the country you’re a senator of Eric) that say otherwise.
Perhaps you should read the study conducted by the University of Melbourne researchers that surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing. The results there don’t agree with you, Eric. Don’t take my word for the results, look it up yourself, Eric! Of course, don’t read it if you feel the cognitive dissonance would not be good for you!

Domestic Violence & Separation

So if children thrive with two parents, I can only assume you must be anxious about the obvious issue of single parents and the high rate of divorced couples throwing a spanner into your concerns for children. Equally concerning to you must be family domestic violence in this country is at an all time high although not helped by your government’s removal of funding for legal aid, support and shelters. So surely one would assume you are putting your senatorial weight behind providing as much support as possible for issues of domestic violence and for single parents of these “enormously disadvantaged children” about which you are so concerned. Although aligning yourself in support of the “World Congress Of Families” who are opposed to single mothers as one of societies biggest drain on resources as well as damaging to societies moral fabric doesn’t suggest consistency here. What are you doing to help out folks for whom the failure of “straight marriage” from divorce and violence which results in either denying children their access to a mother and a father or damaging them because they have a violent parent? Still, I am probably wavering a little off topic here.

IVF

Couples have a right to choose to be without children, as they should have a choice about whom they love. Couples don’t usually found their marriages on “sexual complementarily and potential fertility” as Archbishop Hart suggests but on more esoteric values such as “love”. Fertility matching is obviously not a strong factor here when you consider that “IVF” is the most googled “word” in Australia. For many married adults “generating” children “normally”, is not even a physical possibility let alone the focus for getting married. And yet “children” is the fallacious “strawman” argument used to prop up the anti-equality rhetoric.

Legal protection for Children

What do you seriously believe will happen if this goes through?

“The institution of marriage has stood the test of time.”, You said. Really? It used to be about property ownership and dowries. Before that, Gay marriage was an institution of previous dynasties. “Heterosexual Marriage” the way this generation envisages it, is a recent historical invention. As for this generation, it hasn’t been doing so well. It now ends for huge proportions of our population down the familiar path of unhappy families, domestic violence, broken marriages, unfaithful partners, divorce, legal battles and subsequent family disruption! Yeap, straight marriage is doing so well … NOT! I do although agree with your comment (when taken out of context) that “For our children’s sake it [marriage] needs to continue to do so”. Gay Parents will be able to secure legal protections for their children if it is legalised.

Happy children

My son’s school AND our Church is replete with both examples of single parents and same sex parents with normal happy children whose kids play in the church, the soccer field and the school play yard with my Son. We’ve been proud to attend the baptisms of children of Gay couples. Children need not be used as pawns in a fallacious argument!

Choose Love!

The issue in the case for having children or getting married is about – a legal right to a choice for whom you love. Don’t you like it? Well, that’s your choice too! Changing the Law to allow choice doesn’t prohibit your bigotry, hatred, your ranting about polygamy, bestiality, being ambushed OR -alternatively – your acceptance or joy at the opportunity presented by giving LOVE between two people, legality.

Keating on Abbott

July 10, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Keating warning us about Abbott

Ah, Keating, there was a man who could chew them up and spit them out. He didn’t need to repeat himself over and over while he thought of the next word to say in a pathetic attempt to form a whole sentence as Abbot does. He churned out dialogue at a remarkable rate as his mind leapt out in front to choose from a cornucopia of comments he wanted to express. His verbal banter barraged his opponents like a flooded river hits at the shores tearing at the edge of their debate till the walls collapsed. Abbott is barely able to complete a coherent sentence in most of his diatribes. They are typically either so full of gaffes or misspoken expressions that it is a wonder he can make a speech himself at all. In fact, he once complained in that infamous ABC interview in 2010 that we could only be assured he wasn’t stretching the truth was if he was expressing himself from an “absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark”.
It seems carefully scripted dialogue — probably written by someone more articulate — is the only way he can even tell the truth, much less string a series of coherent sentences together. This is our national statesman? Is it no wonder Germaine Greer on Q&A once said, ”For me, the biggest mystery is that Tony Abbott is a Rhodes scholar” to roars of approval from the crowd and the anger of right-wing columnists. Keating, love him or hate him, was as adroitly articulate on his feet as Abbott simply isn’t, even in a scripted speech. There couldn’t be two Prime Ministers further apart in intellect.