Rudd’s change on marriage sets up a new stolen generation

Tuesday May 21, 2013

The Prime Minister who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another.

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said Kevin Rudd’s overnight change of mind on redefining marriage ignored the consequence of robbing children of their biological identity through same-sex surrogacy and other assisted reproductive technologies.

“What Kevin Rudd has failed to consider is that marriage is a compound right to form a family. Marriage is not just an affectionate relationship between two people regardless of gender.

“Marriage has always been about providing stability and biological identity for children wherever possible.

“What Mr Rudd has not considered is whether or not it is right for children to be taken through technology from their biological parent so that ‘married’ same-sex couples can fulfil their desires.”

Mr Shelton said Mr Rudd had also ignored the fact that this inevitably means parents will have their children taught the mechanics of homosexual sex in school sex education classes, something that would surely follow the redefinition of marriage.

“The so-called ‘marriage equality’ debate has been conducted by slogans without proper consideration of the consequences. Kevin Rudd is the latest to fall victim to shallow thinking on this issue,” Mr Shelton said.

“Mr Rudd’s announcement that he supports same sex marriage will be a huge disappointment for Christians and leaves their hopes for the preservation of marriage clearly with the Coalition and Christian-based minor parties.

“Any notion that same sex marriage can be legislated with protections for churches not to conduct the service is naive in the extreme,” said Mr Shelton.

“The UK legislation claiming to do the same was not even through the lower house when gay activists announced they had no intention of honouring that because in their view it allowed the church to discriminate against them.

“Any same sex marriage legislation will create vulnerabilities for the church and even more so for individual Christians who don’t have its institutional weight and legal identity,” Mr Shelton said.

“Wherever same sex marriage or equivalents have been legislated Christians have been pursued by activists. Christian businesses have been closed down, public servants and even pastors hauled into court and fined for exercising their conscience,” Mr Shelton said.

“No government has the right to create these vulnerabilities for the church-going twenty per cent of the population in order to allow the point two per cent who will take advantage of this to redefine marriage,” he said.

“Mr Rudd seems intent on burning bridges not only with colleagues, but with a constituency which had long given him the benefit of the doubt,” Mr Shelton said.

“Something is either true and demands our support, or not. The truth doesn’t change with popular opinion, to which he is now saying he seems to be responding.”

“If this is an attempt to wedge Julia Gillard, it will cost Mr Rudd the last of his following in the Christian Constituency,” Mr Shelton said.

His views on homosexuality and changing the definition of marriage are not in line with orthodox Christian teaching.

“All major Australian church denominations officially oppose same sex marriage and over 50 of Australia’s most prominent church and denominational leaders signed a statement against it in August 2011.”

Rudd has change of heart on gay marriage

Supporters of marriage equality during a rally in SydneyFederal MPs are shifting towards support for gay marriage, Labor Minister Bob Carr says.Source: AAP

FORMER prime minister Kevin Rudd insists his change of heart to support gay marriage is about his “personal journey” and not a political point-scoring exercise.

Mr Rudd posted a blog on Monday declaring he had changed his mind on the controversial issue and now agreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed so long as churches and religious institutions don’t have to marry them.

But the opposition has questioned Mr Rudd’s motivations.

Previously, Mr Rudd had been a staunch opponent to gay marriage and as recently as September 2012 voted against legalising same-sex marriage in a parliamentary vote which lost 98-42.

But he insists he has had a change of heart and wanted to let the Australian public know his new stance before a new vote in the lower house on June 6.

“If you can’t be grown up enough in the Australian national political debate … and reach an amended or changed position, then frankly you shouldn’t be in national political life,” Mr Rudd told reporters in Brisbane on Tuesday.

“This has been something of a personal journey for me.”

Mr Rudd said he wasn’t concerned his new position would put him at odds with Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has previously voted against the change.

Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan said he respected Mr Rudd’s decision and urged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to allow coalition MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

“This is an issue where views are deeply held and that’s why it’s appropriate that we have a conscience vote in the parliament,” Mr Swan told reporters in Adelaide.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr says the parliamentary numbers may be shifting in support of legalising same-sex marriage.

Liberal frontbencher George Brandis said Mr Rudd’s comments were more about personal ambitions than about the issue of same-sex marriage.

“What it tells you is that Kevin Rudd has not given up, Kevin Rudd is at it again,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

The Australian Christian Lobby says Mr Rudd’s announcement was a huge disappointment for Christians.

“If this is an attempt to wedge Julia Gillard, it will cost Mr Rudd the last of his following in the Christian constituency,” spokesman Lyle Shelton said in a statement.

Labor backbencher Stephen Jones, one of the key figures behind the initial gay marriage bill, said Mr Rudd had followed a path taken by many MPs who had begun instinctively with scepticism or opposition.

“At some stage over the next five years, we will have a change of law in our country,” Mr Jones said.

The House of Representatives will revisit the issue on June 6, with a vote expected on a Greens private members’ bill.


31 thoughts on “Rudd’s change on marriage sets up a new stolen generation

  1. Wow, the ACL manages to offend gays and Aborigines in its quest to become the Christian Right in Australia.

    I suppose we should be glad because it will drive more and more people away and people will see them for what they are. The insignificant loony fringe like the KKK.

  2. Senator Wong condemns Christian Lobby’s stolen generations comment

    Finance Minister Penny Wong has condemned the Australian Christian Lobby over comments likening children of same-sex couples to the stolen generations, saying the group’s “bigotry” has no place in modern Australia.

    Senator Wong, who is a lesbian, a mother and a Christian, said comments made on Tuesday by the the ACL’s managing director Lyle Shelton “demonstrated just how out of touch they are”.

    Within hours of former prime minister Kevin Rudd announcing his change of heart on same sex marriage, the lobby group published a press release on its website saying: “The prime minister who rightly gave an apology to the stolen generation has sadly not thought through the fact that his new position on redefining marriage will create another.”

    This new “stolen generation” would come about “because of the use of technology to sever a child from its biological parent in order that same sex couples could realise their desire to have children”, Mr Shelton later told the ABC.

    The stolen generations refers to children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families under acts of parliament over several decades.

    Asked about Mr Shelton’s comments on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Wong said “this sort of bigotry really has no place in modern Australia”.

    “Regardless of his views on marriage equality, same-sex families exist and we have children,” Senator Wong said.

    “Our children are loved and our children are cherished and they deserve far more than the sort of peddling of prejudice we’ve seen.

    “I don’t think the ACL speak for all people of faith in this country.”

    Senator Wong welcomed Mr Rudd’s change of position on marriage equality.

    Of the 71 Labor MPs in the House of Representatives, about 40 support same sex marriage legislation, according to Labor backbencher Stephen Jones.

    However, Mr Jones, who has been one of the most vocal advocates of changing the law to allow gay couples to marry, doubted Mr Rudd’s announcement would change much in this parliament.

    “The only thing that’s going to change the issue in this parliament is if Tony Abbott allows a conscience vote,” Mr Jones said.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/senator-wong-condemns-christian-lobbys-stolen-generations-comment-20130521-2jyn3.html

  3. Well, you wouldn’t expect an evangelical lobby group to be in favour of changing marriage as we know it, so why are you so surprised?

    As for the Aboriginal stolen generations connection, why would they be offended? Here’s more publicity for their cause, provided by a prominently featured Christian group. I would have thought they’d be encouraged by the publicity.

    Senator Wong, being a lesbian, would, of course, be ‘offended’. It’s in her interests to be offended. Offence inthis matter gains her milage in her quest to help gays achieve so-called equal marriage. All offence is gratefully received and articulated. Never mind the offence borne by people who believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman to exclusion of all others.

    Senator Wong isn’t the mother, though, is she? She’s the ‘partner’ of the actual mother. A kind of de facto step-mother. I don’t suppose for one second that Senator Wong managed to impregnate her partner (that would be a miracle), so they resorted to IVF, which means that an unknown male donor provided the sperm, and is, therefore, biologically, the father, which is the point Shelton is making, albeit not a very strong or pragmatic one politically.

    It is highly conceivable that the child of such a relationship (it doesn’t have to be this particular relationship, but a similar one), could, one day, work out that, having two mothers could only mean that one or the other was the real mother and the other is not the real mother, but a lover mother.

    Then they could go to the next step and wonder who their actual father is. They may even consider it something of an emotionally trying issue to not know who the father is. They may even, hypothetically, be upset or offended by not knowing who their father is and make enquiries, or even discover the whereabouts of their real biological father, and find a way to meet him.

    From here we could imagine a scenario where the child, no longer in his or her teens, might grow to like or even emotionally grow to love their newly discovered biological father and feel the deep loss of not having been able to go through their informative years with the presence of a father in their lives, especially knowing all the time that the father was alive and in the community for all those years.

    The child may even feel that they were kept from knowing their father, and go into a depression of some kind. This is hypothetical, but very possible given the growing prevalence of such arrangements, and the inevitable upsurge in these kinds of family units as equal marriage gains traction and becomes law.

    Aren’t these disturbing feelings of loss and separation very similar to the emotions felt by those Aboriginals who were removed from their biological parents, for whatever reason, and placed in care? Didn’t most of the criers love those children and care for them just as deeply as a gay couple will? Yet the child grows feeling the loss and deprivation o not knowing one of their biological parents.

    I don’t think the argument is particularly strong, but it certainly does have some merit. It would be better to stick to the Biblical reasons for maintaining the current marriage definition. That way there are no reasons to doubt the strength of conviction of evangelical Christians, who are bound to follow God’s principles and not those of secular Governments.

    Rudd, of course, is just stirring the pot, as he does. It is totally political, and he has given himself the front page again. he must be delighted with the ACL for giving him such traction.

  4. Bones,
    The insignificant loony fringe like the KKK.

    I was going to leave this stupidity alone, but it is such a brainless, imbecilic remark, it demands a response.

    Comparisons with the KKK are fairly typical for Bones, who, it seems, has no means of moderating his own redneck extremist bitterness when it comes to criticism of evangelical organisations which operate in the political arena and lobby governments.

    It’s fine to disagree, and there could be a number of reasons, but to level such ill-concieved comments at the ACL for having strong views about marriage is more demeaning to Bones’ own cause than anything else.

    The KKK were a secretive and violent mob who terrorised African Americans who had come up form slavery. They were a bloody, legalistically religious, political and vicious. They wore hoods to disguise themselves. They had no political or legal mans of gaining traction so they resorted to terror and fear. They were mass murderers.

    ACL, whether you like them or not, are up front, in the public eye, make political comments with valid arguments and, rather than rape, loot and pillage, are, in fact, more likely to be on the receiving end of criticism than dealing it out. They do not seek a violent solution, but a democratic means of projecting their views, just like the homosexual and lesbian lobbyists, who are equally influential, financial, prominent in the media and organised.

    This issue is being debated in he open, in the media, all the parties are known and their views are predictable. There are no secrets, just a political arena with a heated and passionate debate.

    Whether you think there are left or right politics involved is not the issue. Neither is anything like the KKK, or Pol Pot, or Hitler, or any of the other nasties thrown into the current discussions.

    If Bones can’t learn how to kerb his discussion techniques he is fully letting himself down, and anyone he seeks to represent in his views. His credibility is even more shot than the secretive, masked loony Zorro.

  5. As for the Aboriginal stolen generations connection, why would they be offended?

    Becuase making the claim that the two are exactly alike (which calling children of IVF reproduction utilising gay parents “another stolen generation’ does) belittles and negates the actual very real experience of thousands of aboriginal familes. One is a hypothetical ‘possible’ kind of experience, wheareas the other is an actual real and horrendous fact o past experience.

    Whilst your example is one possible, and I agree is is possible…yet still quite exagerated, potential experience fo isolated children, is in no way could be said to be the wide spread actual experience of children born via IVF and donor sperm…otherwise we would be seeing this occur all over the place already.

    If anything your example, and the claims of the ACL are not arguments against gay marriage, they are arguments against any kind of reproductive science that did not include the egg and sperm of the couple wanting to concieve.

  6. This reponse from an Aboriginal Christian leader might help clear up why the ACL’s remarks are so disgusting:

    A representative for the stolen generations, Pastor Ray Minniecon CEO of Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation, said they are ‘deeply concerned’ by ACL’s comments.

    ‘The assimilation policy of forced removal of children from there homes and the subsequent abuse of those children is no way comparable to the desire of a loving couple to have a child and have their relationship recognized,’ said Minniecon.

    ‘It is disrespectful to the current Stolen Generations, their history and their families. It is also dehumanizing and demonizing of gay couples and their desire for marriage and family.’…

    …Pastor Minniecon added that Shelton should apologize and Christians should distance themselves from his comments. ‘We call on other Christian leaders to publicly repudiate Lyle and the Australian Christian Lobby and to back our call for an apology,’ he said.

  7. “I was going to leave this stupidity alone, but it is such a brainless, imbecilic remark, it demands a response.”

    @Steve. I think you’ll be a busy man on this site.

  8. The ACL are showing they belong with the KKK on the lunatic fringes.

    Most normal people will see their arguments as disgusting.

  9. Well, all activists gain great mileage out of being offended, so Shelton’s outburst benefits them all. But their offence is more a matter of convenience than actual upset.

    Storm in a teacup.

  10. Some people, like Bones, would feign upset if you blew your nose with the wrong coloured handkerchief.

    Emotional extremist..

  11. The Right-Wing Christian Dictionary

    Activist Anyone you disagree with. Thus, “activist” judges, “activist” unions, “activist” school boards, and “activist” homosexuals.

  12. Typical to see Steve trivialising the plight of Aboriginals by Christians.

    Let me guess Christians are going to take the kids off of gays. Steve would support that.

    Not really a good time for Christians to be telling the world how to look after kids with the sexual abuse inquiry getting underway.

  13. No one feigns offence like the Christian right. Speak on you lunatics, every word is a nail in your coffin. Australia doesn’t need your dogma any more, if we ever did,

  14. The whole media exercise is a political molehill made into a mountain.

    I don’t actually agree with the comments. They were off limits. As I said, Christians should stick to the Biblical reasons for guarding marriage as it is.

    Rudd was stirring and he succeeded. He has more mileage out of this than he probably intended, especially now the indigenous activists have thrown their hat in the ring. I don’t see where Shelton was critical of their cause. He likened the two mother family to a potentially similar scenario. I don’t agree, as I said, with the idea, and the comments would have been better left alone.

    But it is all more political than emotional.

    The ACL is fighting for marriage as it is. You’re fighting to get it changed.

    Many Christians are offended by this move on marriage. But they don’t seem to count in this debate, only the gays, who previously weren’t interested, but now have made it a cause célèbre.

    It’ll happen of course. But God won’t endorse it.

  15. You sure the ACL aren’t headed by a secret pro-gay person. Their arguments are really helping the progay cause. So far we’ve had Hitler and the stolen generation invoked. What’s next?

  16. Apart from the offensiveness of comparing IVF with the stolen generation, it is a particularly stupid thing to say because it was mainly the Christian churches that facilitated the taking of Aboriginal children.

    So they are warning not to do gay marriage or else it will be just as bad as what the Christians did 50 years ago.

    The gays are saying “Are the Christians going to come and take our children away too?”

    They say any publicity is good publicity but surely there are limits.

  17. You’re being rather hysterical. It was a Ruddism which worked. You’re all talking about his comments and he’s wedged the PM and Opposition in one statement. Job done. Move on.

  18. I think they did the wrong thing, for what it’s worth. But they were probably asked or a comment by some journalist.

  19. So we’ve had the ACL compare gay marriage with smoking, Nazis, paedophiles and now the stolen generation.

    But yeah the ACL is fighting for marriage by stopping others getting married.

  20. Who’s stopping who from getting married? No one. As long as it’s a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, as in the present constitution.

  21. Well, Steve old mate…it’s not in the constitution or we would require a vote of the people to change it. It is federal law, and so federal parliament can change it.

    So I take it that were the law to change, you would support the marriage of same sex couples?

  22. It could never be marriage in the sight of God.

    What the civil law does and what gays do with it is their business. I don’t have to support law, just obey it, but it would not affect me since I am not contemplating entering into a gay marriage or performing a gay marriage ceremony. Laws are changed all the time.

    I hold to the Biblical definition of marriage. I will not change my mind. God will not change His. I will just have to disagree with the law if and when it is introduced. There is no law against disagreement. Yet.

    I don’t support prostitution or abortion on demand either. They are law, but I do not support them. I understand why there were laws introduced to legalise them. But I do not support either. It was a matter of expedience to save and protect lives, I know, and that I agree with, but the fact that it was necessary at any level is abhorrent in nearly every case, with very few exemptions. Legalisation has not prevented suffering, only moved it to a back room where no one with any sensibility has to see it.

    If laws prohibiting freedom of the press were to have been introduced I would not have supported them either. I would have resisted them until they were changed.

    Fortunately, as you have no doubt pointed out in your arguments for gay marriage, someone didn’t support the rights people once had to own slaves. That is why the laws were changed, wars were fought and liberty was won for countless men and women.

    Laws are never final.

  23. I’m gobsmacked at your being able to read the mind if God! You’re are very clever Steve!

    See, there are those maps again Steve! Your map is that the bible IS the actual words of God and my map is that it is a record of mans interaction and relationship with God, that God breathes life into!

    Our maps really do shape the way we relate with others and react to certain words, ideas and events. But our maps are just that, maps…they are representations of reality…but they are not themselves reality.

    The only fact, or reality we can know about the bible is that it is ‘a book’ everything else is our map.

    Your map tells you that you know the mind of God, mine tells me that we can get hints at it…but we can never truly know the mind of God…or we would actually BE God!

    Life, despite you not thinking so, is all about the maps we use to navigate it!

  24. “It could never be marriage in the sight of God.”

    The great tragedy and sign of the times is that someone would even need to say that.

    But the greater tragedy is that people will argue the point.

  25. Well you can have a map if you like, Greg. I’ll stick to the Word of God. It’s far more reliable.

    He actually tells me I can know the mind of Christ through the Word and Spirit.

    1 Corinthians 2
    9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
    10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
    11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
    16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    That map you claim I have is actually called by Jesus the Holy Spirit. He is a Person. He knows the Way. He leads. I follow.

    I’m not clever. He is.

    I’m telling you, God will never endorse gay marriage, even if it is legalised by State legislation or Federal.

    You won’t find that in Google maps.

Comments are closed.