Read your letters to MPs

Dear Mr Burke,

I have to say I am very disappointed that you are considering supporting same sex marriage.  There is a God, and He has made it very clear, not only in the way he made us, but also by His word,  that homosexuality is against His will.  I am quite sure that children etc that are raised in such families that you are proposing to support will in the long run realise that going against God’s will is not conducive to happiness.

Respectfully

Fr and Dr Dimitri Kokkinos

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

My Dear Prime Minister

This is just a short note to seek your support for a vote against any motion to introduce a same-sex marriage bill.

This legislation will have many unintended and drastic consequences.

It is not an issue of equality. This misrepresents the situation.

I do not believe that this is merely a matter for elected representatives to decide. Even a referendum without unanimous support has the potential to disenfranchise the rights of a substantial proportion of the nation.

There are objections to this policy from many diverse quarters indicating the strength of underlying opposition to such moves.

I apologise for writing to you directly but it has become virtually impossible to air any criticism of same-sex marriage in mainstream media. I write as someone who has experience in this domain.

I look forward to your abstaining from supporting same-sex marriage and I would ask that your office conveys to me  your final position on this matter as a matter of priority.

Submitted for your consideration.

Sincerely

James Athanasou PhD, MAPS

Associate Professor

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Ms Ellis,

I write regarding the bill currently before parliament to amend the Marriage Act, and urge you to reject the proposed changes.

Marriage is a timeless institution. It is important to recognise that the goal of the Marriage Act was not to define marriage, but to codify a definition that already existed at common law. Furthermore, the common law definition in turn did not change Marriage when it was first introduced, but codified a definition that was already accepted & implicitly understood by the community. Marriage as we know and practice it today is older than the Marriage Act, older than the common law definition, and indeed older than the Commonwealth of Australia.

If the vote proceeds tomorrow, it will be the first time in our history that the definition of marriage has been changed by legislation.

This is a dangerous precedent to set. Marriage is too important an institution to allow government interference. This precedent opens the door for other minority lobby groups who wish to push their own agenda into the definition of Marriage. Surely, for such an important institution, the people deserve to vote directly on the change?

Also, as a Priest of the Orthodox Christian Church, my beliefs will not permit me to marry two people of the same gender. Experience in other countries has shown that people in my position may end up being persecuted for their beliefs.

Restricting “marriage” to only a man & a woman is no more discriminatory than restricting the word “man” to people of the male gender or the word “woman” to people of the female gender. This should not be seen as an “equality” issue as its proponents would like to put it.

I pray that this email has not tired you too much; I know that this is a tiring issue for you too and I know that this is not something that you personally feel strongly about. I trust that you will take my position into your account.

Blessings,

-Fr Jeremy Krieg

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Mr Burke,

I kindly ask that you vote against Bill Shorten’s same-sex marriage bill. I understand that you do not intend to do this in light of the statement you posted on your website on 24 May, but you must reconsider.

You cannot compare the referendum in Ireland with the situation in Australia. If anything, you should support a referendum in Australia and let the citizens decide by vote rather than MPs such as yourself going against the sentiment of their constituency and thereby ceasing to be their “representative” except in name only. Moreover, MPs may be swayed by opinion polls, media pressure and lobby groups and thereby separate themselves from their electorate’s view.

You, however, are indeed in the fortunate position of clearly knowing the views of your constituency on this matter.

In your statement you said it yourself:

“Communities like the one I represent in the parliament do not match the national opinion polls on this issue. The last time the campaign for marriage equality published seat by seat polling, the views in my part of Sydney were, as I had expected, the exact opposite of the national vote.”

So, for the record, you should continue to stand by your constituency of Watson and vote the way that they wish to be represented. That is the least that you can do regardless of your own personal views. Are you really more enlightened and ethical and privileged than the rest of us? Aren’t you our elected official; our public servant … whom we chose?

I was also very disappointed to read the following in your statement:

“The best thing for community cohesion is for the debate to be settled and the law to be changed. Those who want to marry at law will be able to do so. Those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it.”

I am afraid that you cannot possibly foresee how people who do not want such change will be unaffected, nor do you have the right to pronounce such a forecast in light of so many examples overseas to the contrary.

Please reconsider your position and vote in line with the people of Watson.

Sincerely,

Anastasios Kalogerakis

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Ms Ellis,

 By now you are well versed about the manifold problems that codifying SSM under Australian legislation will have to human dignity and worth. Freedom and values form an inseparable bond and deserve to be protected by the laws of our nation. To act contrary will be to sever this bond and moreover will replace one’s enate freedom and gifts that are enshrined in their values with mutable laws that further remove themselves from safeguarding the dignity of the human person with the passing of time.

The bill tabled by Mr Shorten is a social endorsement of moral degradation that seeks to remove responsibility for self-indulgence away from personal actions through abusing the very laws that are set in place to account for these actions.

 Yours sincerely,

Fr Silouan Fotineas

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Kate Ellis,

Thank you for taking the time to read this humble email in support of traditional Marriage. 

For millennium traditional Marriage had been the foundation for societies and the key to their growth and success over the centuries. 

To redefine marriage that had been this way for so long will also impact and redefine family, family structure that has been a proven way to sustain society. 

Knowingly removing a Father or a Mother from a child is a social justice and human rights issue. A child will automatically lose their right to a father or a mother and not because of extenuating circumstances, but because a couple and the government have allowed the biological parent of a child to be taken from them. A child has no ability to speak or chose for themselves, a decision is made for them by those who are suppose to protect them, completely change their lives and society in an experimental form of “family” that will change their lives forever.

Please consider very carefully how redefining a tried and proven way of marriage and family is detrimental to society and especially the children directly involved. No one has the right to take away a child’s Mother or Father.

Finally I ask you to protect my right to believe in traditional Marriage and not be the target of hateful comments and the possible punishment by law that we have seen take place overseas when one disagrees with SSM.

 Thank you for taking the time to consider speaking up for Marriage.

 In Christ,

Joanna Krieg

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Sir,

In the face of the recent media attention promoting same-sex marriage, I am writing to express my heartfelt opposition to the legalisation of homosexual marriage.  Despite the claims of many, legalising same-sex marriage does not mean removing inequalities from society.  The language of equality and inequality is misplaced with respect to the marriage debate, for it wishes us to conflate two different types of relationships and misleadingly treat these as one.  As if granting marriage a certificate to a committed homosexual couple somehow makes their relationship a “marriage” like that of a heterosexual couple and therefore makes these relationships equal.  Yet this is just to give the homosexual relationship the name of “marriage” and validate this with government recognition.  It is undeniable that committed homosexual relationships and committed heterosexual relationships are different.  Recognising this difference by calling one type of relationship “marriage” to the exclusion of the other does not necessarily imply that they are equal or unequal, just that they are different.  A homosexual relationship is fundamentally different from a heterosexual marriage and it is misleading to play around with words and call the former a “marriage.”

 

It does not make sense for same-sex marriage advocates to care about whether we start calling a type of relationship a “marriage” when it has never been called marriage.  A name does not grant equality.  Nor does it make two different things become the same; a homosexual “marriage” can never be the same as heterosexual marriage.  Instead, hidden under the vast emotive rhetoric reeled out by media and aimed at appealing to our legitimate desire for liberty, freedom and equality is the real issue: that of whether homosexual couples in committed relationships should be given the same “rights” as those accorded to heterosexual couples.  This is the “equality” that homosexual marriage advocates are seeking (and it has nothing to do with marriage per se).  Why does the media’s discourse not focus on these specific issues of legislated rights and restrictions?  Committed homosexual relationships are already accorded most of the economic benefits that heterosexual ones are and these could easily be extended without having to legalise same-sex marriage.  But inherent to marriage in particular is the possibility of reproduction, or in our modern society, access to reproductive technology.  So why don’t those in favour of “marriage equality” provide justification for why homosexual “marriage” should be allowed to result in inequalities for the children involved; children whom the government would say can have no opportunity to grow up with both of their biological parents and who must be deprived of either a father or mother figure.  Is this right?  Is this good for children?  Will these children feel that an unnecessary injustice has been imposed on their lives by this deprivation?  This is the real problem at stake which people are reluctant to face, for it threatens a core value of our society; our “right” to have as much as we can in life.  But I believe that this jeopardises the rights of our children and what is best for them, which is to wherever possible grow up with their biological parents living together in a committed, life-long relationship.

Yours faithfully,

Emily Bradshaw

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear Mr Shorten,

Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Redefining marriage to “the union of two people” and therefore include same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, weaken public morality, deprive children of a mother and a father, degrade the role of a father and mother, limit freedom of religion and the right of parents and Christian schools to teach their children and students Christian values and result in Christians being punished by the law for disagreeing with same sex marriage, as has already occurred in countries where same sex marriage has been legislated. Redefining marriage has consequences for everyone.

This is no subject for political point scoring. Devout Christians will never accept same sex marriage and you are forcing them to abandon Labor!

I kindly ask you to re-consider your position.

Thank you,

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow us Facebookrss