Family advocacy can be political and charitable, rules New Zealand judge

comment   | print |

Family First National Director Bob McCoskrie interviews NZ Prime Minister and gay
marriage supporter 
John Key at a forum in election year.


A New Zealand organisation promoting the natural family has won a decision from the country’s High Court that its political activities do not necessarily disqualify it as a charity.

Justice Collins ruled that Family First NZ’s advocacy of the traditional family makes it similar to “organisations that have advocated for the ‘mental and moral improvement’ of society” – that is, one of the classic types of charitable activity.

Family First was granted charitable status by the then Charities Commission in May 2007 but was served notice of deregistration by the Charities Board, which replaced the commission, in September 2012 during the run-up to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in April 2013.

In fact, the Charities Board confirmed its decision to deregister Family… click here to read whole article and make comments



A milestone in the sexual revolution

comment   | print |

Friday’s decision by the US Supreme Court to legalise same-sex marriage is a milestone in the history of the sexual revolution. The Obama Administration celebrated the occasion with a rainbow light show projected onto the White House “to demonstrate [its] unwavering commitment to progress and equality”.

But revolutionary events don’t always turn out as the protagonists expect.

On January 23, 1793, the bloody head of His Most Christian Majesty Louis XVI was displayed to a cheering crowd. The revolutionaries of the new French republic had finally extinguished the ancien regime. As a modern historian writes, the king’s execution “had destroyed something forever. When the guillotine blade fell at 10:22 that morning a mystique was destroyed. Monarchy had been desecrated, desacralised.”

The revolutionaries foresaw a brilliant future for the French nation after it was freed from the yoke of royalty. “Unless the tyrant loses his head, there will… click here to read whole article and make comments



What does the future hold?

comment   | print |

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, yesterday's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin… click here to read whole article and make comments



A defeat for ‘We the People’ and our posterity

comment   | print |

About five generations ago, our nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. In that same generation, our nation’s Supreme Court declared that “nothing was more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth” than “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.” Seemingly all American legal authorities concurred.

About five decades ago, for the first time ever, an American litigant claimed that our Constitution required the states to reject this view of marriage, and instead to issue marriage licenses to persons of the same sex. Upon hearing this claim, in 1972, the Supreme Court summarily rejected it as unserious, involving no “substantial federal question.” Seemingly all American legal authorities concurred.

Indeed, for the first two centuries in the life of our Republic, Americans largely agreed on the meaning and… click here to read whole article and make comments



Is teaching Christian morals child abuse?

comment   | print |


Australia’s leading gay activist claims that a booklet defending natural marriage by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference clearly breaches an anti-discrimination act. Worse, it exposes “vulnerable children” to “damaging messages”.

Rodney Croome, national director of Australian Marriage Equality, is angry that Catholic schools in the state of Tasmania are distributing “Don’t Mess with Marriage”. Archbishop Julian Porteous plans to give 12,000 Tasmanian Catholic school children copies to pass on to their parents.

Some teachers were horrified at the prospect of Catholic schools distributing Catholic literature, says Mr Croome:

“The Catholic Church has every right to express its views from the pulpit but it is completely inappropriate to enlist young people as the couriers of its prejudice. The booklet says to gay students in Catholic schools that their sexuality is wrong and that their aspiration to marry is a danger to marriage, religion and society.”

And Mr… click here to read whole article and make comments



Business and professions will suffer if same-sex marriage arrives

comment   | print |

I was a law student when I first learned of the consequences of not being politically correct concerning homosexuality. A former Miss America’s contract as the citrus growers’ brand-ambassador was allowed to lapse because she had successfully campaigned for the repeal of a pro-homosexual ordinance in Miami-Dade County. She was quoted as saying, “What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable, alternate way of life.” She was publicly humiliated -- "pied" on national television -- and her name -- Anita Bryant -- became synonymous with something called "homophobia" and "hate speech."

As a new Air Force judge advocate officer, my first court assignment was to represent the United States in an administrative discharge proceeding concerning a female service member. She was being kicked out of the service… click here to read whole article and make comments


MONDAY, 22 JUNE 2015

Would Oscar Wilde have voted for same-sex marriage?

comment   | print |

After a “yes” to gay marriage in Ireland’s referendum, columnists at The Guardian, the BBC, The Globe and Mail, and at the New York Times celebrated a long overdue vindication for Oscar Wilde.

But Wilde is the last person gay marriage advocates should want as their poster boy. The Victorian playwright’s views on marriage were so comically toxic that, he would shame any self-respecting gay right out of the license office. His life reads like a burlesque of the academic field of “queer theory” and is a warning to society against letting its little Oscars run wilde.

Wilde’s views on wedlock unfold in witty ripostes he made at table, written epigrams, and countless aphorisms which blossom on the lips of his characters. Imagine Oscar Wilde in Paris at “Les Deux Magots” café. He’s sipping absinthe. Someone asks his opinion on gay marriage.… click here to read whole article and make comments



How LGBT-friendly laws could change medicine

comment   | print |

With same-sex marriage and the transformation of Bruce Jenner into Caitlyn Jenner in the world headlines, it’s time to ask what LGBT bioethics would look like. Timothy Murphy, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine,  foreshadows some of the major themes in the journal Bioethics.

Bioethics benefits. “Bioethics is better than it would otherwise have been, because people queer in their sexual interests and identities have challenged misconceived concepts of health and disease, challenged obstacles to access and equity in healthcare, and forced attention to professional standards in clinical care, among other things.”

Defending LGBT parenting. To show that the battle is not completely over, Murphy cites Oxford philosopher John Finnis’s implacable opposition to adoption by male and female homosexuals as “intrinsically evil”. Putting “skepticism about LGBT people as fit parents fully behind it” will be one of the first tasks of fully developed… click here to read whole article and make comments



Hotel Homosexuality: yes, you can check out, and leave

comment   | print |

Image: Pixabay


Leaving the homosexual lifestyle, becoming ex-gay, overcoming same-sex attractions – whatever you call it – seems to be the only unacceptable behaviour on the sexuality spectrum these days. MercatorNet asked Christopher Doyle, a Washington based professional counsellor and former homosexual, about belonging to an oppressed minority group in an era of sexual liberation.


Q: Could we first be clear about the term “ex-gay”: does it refer to people (men and women) who no longer feel attracted to people of the same sex? Or does it mean people who have given up homosexual relationships but who might still feel same-sex attraction?

A: "Ex-gay" is a sexual identity, just like "straight" or "gay" or "lesbian" or "transgender". Sexual identity is completely subjective and self-chosen, meaning, people can label themselves how they want, while sexual orientation or preference is typically not chosen. Some people who experience… click here to read whole article and make comments


FRIDAY, 12 JUNE 2015

The mysterious case of the missing morality

comment   | print |

Why have the pro-natural family forces been losing in court? Intentionally or not, Judge Richard Posner explained the reason in a 7th Circuit Court ruling (Sept. 4, 2014), in which he decided against the Indiana and Wisconsin laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman:

"The state [Wisconsin] does not mention Justice Alito’s invocation [in the Windsor case] of a moral case against same-sex marriage, when he states in his dissent that ‘others explain the basis for the institution in more philosophical terms. They argue that marriage is essentially the solemnizing of a comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing new life, even if it does not always do so.’ [US v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2718 (2013).] That is a moral argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The state does not mention the argument because as we said, it… click here to read whole article and make comments


Page 1 of 33 :  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Conjugality deals with the true nature of marriage and the challenges it faces today. Our current focus is on the campaign to legalise same-sex marriage. We'd love to get your comments and suggestions. Send an email to

rss Conjugality RSS feed

Follow MercatorNet
subscribe to newsletter
Sections and Blogs
Family Edge
Sheila Reports
Reading Matters
Demography Is Destiny
Conniptions (the editorial)
contact us
our ideals
our People
Mercator who?
partner sites
audited accounts
advice for writers
New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2
5 George Street
North Strathfield NSW 2137
+61 2 8005 8605
skype: mercatornet
© New Media Foundation 2015 | powered by Encyclomedia | designed by Elleston