8 February 2016
Special Edition 165
The Coober Pedy News features quotations from publications which reveal the real stories
behind the mainstream media headlines, and which offer a carefully researched Christian viewpoint on current
issues affecting Australian society.
The Coober Pedy News is online only and not published as a newspaper.
Click here for the local Coober Pedy newspaper.
0427 815 561
TV, Radio Programs
10-day Weather forecast for Coober Pedy
512km composite Woomera Radar Loop
Map of Coober Pedy
The totalitarianism of same-sex ‘marriage’
February 3, 2015 (CrisisMagazine.com)
In November of 1996 First Things hosted a symposium titled “The Judicial Usurpation of Politics” in which
contributors discussed the threat to American democracy posed by the Supreme Court instated imposition of
abortion on America. Nothing rivals the sheer volume of innocent human beings killed by abortion and yet
First Things saw fit to focus not on the babies themselves or the mothers and fathers, but on the threat to
democracy and the American experiment posed by the judicial over-reach that legalized abortion.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” does not bring with it the innocent blood which cries to heaven, though
it is perhaps the single most audacious social engineering initiative in American history. But the way in which it
has been imposed in state after state, as courts have seen fit to ignore ballot initiatives, sets the stage for a
United States Supreme Court ruling on par with Roe vs. Wade. The Supreme Court has announced it will rule on
same-sex “marriage” in this sitting—exactly ten years after Canada legalized same-sex “marriage.” It is
important for Americans to look at what has happened in Canada.
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage.” On that day the
sun rose as it always does, people went to work, daily Mass was celebrated in Catholic Churches and daily life
continued to unfold as it normally does. In the days and months following there was no massive spike in the
numbers of same-sex couples getting “married” (it had already been legal in 8 of 10 provinces since 2003), the
speculated upon possibility of same-sex “marriage” tourism from the United States never really materialized and the
Canadian flag was not changed from the maple leaf to the LGBT rainbow. But something very significant happened with
the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada and it wasn’t about the freedom of gay people to marry, and it
wasn’t really about marriage.
July 20, 2005 marked a very significant step towards totalitarianism in Canada.
Free speech, the rights of parents, the right to preach and practise one’s religion and the worn and tattered
fibers of normative decency were all deeply damaged. With the legalization of same-sex “marriage” what had been
aberrant only a few years earlier became entrenched as a legal right, and what had been a normal and natural
view of sexuality had been reduced to the retrograde thinking of hate crime dinosaurs.
Terrence Prendergast is the Catholic archbishop of Ottawa. Speaking at St. Thomas University in Minnesota in 2012,
he outlined the consequences of same-sex “marriage” in Canada. His list included: restrictions on freedoms, forced
sex education, sexually confused children, sexual experimentation among children, muzzling and debilitating the
Church, more births out of wedlock, more in-vitro fertilizations, more abortions, more poverty, more misery, more
disease, more addictions and higher health care costs.
Calgary bishop Frederick Henry was called before a Human Rights Commission Tribunal in 2005 for writing a
letter defining Catholic teaching on same-sex “marriage.” During his speech, Archbishop Prendergast quoted Bishop
Frederick Henry saying: “Human rights laws designed as a shield are now being used as a sword. The issue is
rarely truth formation, but rather censorship, and applying a particular theology through threats, sanctions and
punitive measures.” Archbishop Prendergast continued: “The Bible is being called hate literature. Clearly, the
Church is in the crosshairs. There will be growing pressure for the Church to comply or be shut down.”
Collective madness is a term usually applied to the fevered frenzy of the mob, but there is a darker, more
systematic and more enduring collective madness achieved by reducing obvious truths to elephants in the room.
With the legalization of same-sex “marriage” we had a legal edict establishing the normative nature of
same-sex “marriage” and thereby ruling out as discriminatory essential arguments about the complementarity of
male and female or the procreative purpose of marriage.
Normally, the first thing we notice about a person is their sex, and the first thing we realize when thinking
about the sexes is the obvious physical complementarity of male and female, but in the new SSM regime these
simple and obvious truths must be appended with a caveat saying that there is no such thing as nature, human
sexuality is plastic and there is nothing essentially organic, good and true. This is hugely significant for the
psycho-sexual formation of the young and for the happiness and flourishing of individuals and society as a
whole, but it is also a decisive step towards the destruction of critical intelligence, the cultivation of
abject dependence, and then finally madness and totalitarianism.
Doug Mainwaring works with CanaVox, a project of the Witherspoon Institute. He is a self-described gay man who
is abstinent. Mainwaring describes the efforts to redefine marriage as “a form of incremental totalitarianism.”
According to Mainwaring “gays and lesbians have been used as pawns by progressives to bring about this wedge
issue that I really feel strongly is meant to usher in incremental totalitarianism.”
Stockholm Syndrome was much talked about in the 1970’s when the wealthy heiress Patty Hearst was abducted and
held for ransom, but was then shown joining in with her captors robbing a bank and brutalizing innocent
people. Before being abducted there was no indication that Hearst was psychopathic, there was no suggestion of
a latent criminality, rather the villainy of Patty Hearst was caused by the psychological
manipulation of her captors.
For Hearst in captivity, her autonomous personhood was denied. Whether and when she could stand, sit, lie down,
eat, drink, sleep, speak or be silent—control over all these things were denied her. She was denied any
agency, rendered helpless, obliterated as a person. Then, once a complete breakdown was achieved, small
kindnesses and the restoration of order and therefore the possibility of meaning reconstituted her universe.
But Hearst’s new universe was created by and ordered around her captor who was now also her saviour.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” is not about allowing something; same-sex “marriage” was already
taking place. It was not about recognizing something; spousal and survivor benefits, family tax incentives and
any other advantages to marriage were being or could have been granted without calling it marriage.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative.
It was about the state denying the right to speak one of the most obvious truths about human nature.
It was about a conspiracy to enforce collective madness, cultivate psychological dependence and achieve
Of course it seemed anti-climactic to most, since we seldom see the significance of what is happening as
it happens. Further, Canadians as a people pride themselves on their peace-loving agreeability to a fault.
The vast majority of Canadians never utter opinions contrary to the spirit of the age, the vast majority of
parents passively submit to educational professionals and popular entertainment as the primary educators of
their children, a large majority of people no longer take religion seriously, and for those who did, a large
majority of the clergy had long ago given up on preaching the more difficult teachings of Christianity.
The march to madness was long, and over time there were more and more truths about which we could not speak.
In public spaces conservatives had to live increasingly within their own minds, and for anybody, alone in
your mind can be a dangerous place. In our Walter Mitty imaginations most of us had swooned in self-adulation at
the thought of a glorious last stand that we would make if push ever came to shove. In our mind’s eye our
personal Calvary would be heroic and unflinching. But the sad truth is that most of us die by the inch rather than
the sword, and this we knew in our heart of hearts, and so many of us came to despise ourselves and give up.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada has decimated the social conservative movement.
The passage of the Civil Marriage Act was the formal registration of our collective divorce from natural law and
sanity. It was a breathtaking example of political and cultural revolution. But at another level it was more than
that. With the passage of the Civil Marriage Act we're surrendering our right to teach our children about
manhood and womanhood, husband and wife. Because the truth is, for the homosexual activists, all along it’s been
about the children.
Virtually every homosexual is inordinately preoccupied with his own childhood. Childhood and puberty are the
most dynamic periods of psycho-sexual development and all homosexuals puzzle over their sexuality. Unlike animals
whose sexuality is purely instinctive, human sexuality is a combination of instinct and socialization. There are
many contributors to a child’s socialization; family, peers, schools, culture, but all of these are overseen by
the state that has the power of laws and punishments.
The sexual revolutionaries who lobbied for the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” had already achieved
every legal benefit or could have easily achieved every legal benefit enjoyed by heterosexual marriage through
equal legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but that would have fallen short of the prize most coveted, the
power to deny heterosexuals any claim to distinctiveness and the right to indoctrinate children accordingly.
A revolution has taken place in Canada. It was a long time coming and all of its fruits have yet to ripen but the
revolution has surely happened and the term for the new regime starts with a capital T.
NY court: Farmers can’t obey their faith in their own backyard
Court upholds ruling, $13,000 fine against couple for declining to coordinate same-sex ceremony at their home
Created by Alliance Defending Freedom - https://www.adflegal.org/ - Jan 14, 2016
Related Case: Gifford v. Erwin
ALBANY, N.Y. – A New York court Thursday affirmed a Division of Human Rights ruling against an upstate couple for
declining to coordinate a same-sex wedding ceremony in their own backyard.
“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” said
Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the courton behalf of the couple in
Gifford v. Erwin. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply
for adhering to their faith on their own property. The court should have rejected this unwarranted and
unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal.”
Robert and Cynthia Gifford live in a barn they built on their farm and have occasionally hosted weddings on
the first floor and the surrounding backyard area. Cynthia serves as a wedding coordinator for those events and
does everything but officiate the ceremony. After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of
“sexual orientation discrimination,” it fined them $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to
implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld that order and the fines, finding that
the government can punish the Giffords for declining to coordinate a ceremony that conflicts with their conscience.
ADF attorneys argued that, just as the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing an individual to
salute the flag in school, it also prohibits the government from forcing a wedding coordinator like Cynthia to
plan and participate in a ceremony that violates her faith. The appeals court decision, however,
sidestepped that argument and is allowing the government coercion to continue.
“We had hoped that the court would recognize that the government has clearly gone too far,” said
co-counsel James Trainor, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF. “The Constitution prohibits the
government from forcing anyone to help communicate messages that conflict with their core beliefs about
marriage. The Giffords welcome all people to the farm, but not all messages or events.”
As the first reply brief filed with the court on behalf of the Giffords explained, the “law does not require the
Giffords to coordinate or host every event that a person requests. For example, if the infamous Westboro
Baptist group asked the Giffords to host an event that would express their false message that God hates
people in same-sex relationships, the Giffords would not be discriminating based on religion if they
declined the event because they did not want to host expression that violates their belief that God loves everyone.
The statute does not require that they treat all messages equal.”
On Sept. 25, 2012, Melisa McCarthy called Cynthia Gifford, inquiring about the use of the farm for her
upcoming same-sex ceremony. Because of her Christian faith’s teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely told
McCarthy that she and her husband don’t host and coordinate same-sex ceremonies but left open an invitation to
visit the farm to consider it as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint
with the Division of Human Rights.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right
of people to freely live out their faith.
Wrong even if it were made Law
Picture From rt.com
Buy this Cartoon's Licence Rights. Contact: email@example.com