W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page, All Bulletins, What is New




See also Bulletins Eighty Five and Eighty Seven

Of many, in this day of redefining marriage, and forcing this on people, one must ask this.

Do you really want to suffer, induce or endorse a totalitarian tilt in our country ?

Do you want it to be TELLING you what your morals are to be, instructing both your genes and the God who made them, and then stopped, as both the Bible and nature show, where to get off, in terms of what is what! and all this without bothering about the facts.

Is history so far from you that you do not realise that this voting project involves the option of BYPASSING the Constitutional prohibition, which excludes religious intrusion by the Commonwealth, and so trivialising what is great in religion, as forbidden in Section 116. This it does, while systematising the breach of it, and allowing one party, the neo-morals people, to RULE the rest, or even to attack them, as if we were in need of a new set of persecutors and new group of martyrs with an endless seeming group of lawyers and judgments. To satisfy what precisely is this intimidatory alliance! A nicety of nomenclature and a drive to rule, not least ? 

But with what, and by what royal assemblage of national directors of the new directive religion in collision with the Constitution, would Australians be assailed right down to niceties of speech. Indeed, you may be taught what you may say and what not, how you may be insulted as well as assaulted by your would-be superiors, through an invented set of laws, you the mere subjects and butts of this unbalanced state of affairs.

Do you really desire this type of grossly discriminatory preference to be given to one group in the nation, even worse, under the name of tolerance, while the coming result appears to be a banal confusion of terms, and in the case of love, a gross distortion! Love and what is biblically*1 rightly regarded as sexual abuse of design*2 with a marriage tag, are not the same, for it is simply not the case that the former is absent unless the latter is present; and trying to make them so is, apart from the confusion in the propaganda, an insult to love, as if as such, it is aborted by lack of sexual connection in a marital compass.

This is perhaps the worst of it: not acknowledging love's many criteria as if it  could be  fulfilled  only through first demanding for it certain inventive types of sexual conduct to be endorsed in a marital setting.  Exclude those and you exclude love! Really ? Is this some type of aggressive denunciation and mockery of both the natural productive realities of the body and the word of God, in their natural and supernatural unity, in order to use the term love ?

Is it to be endorsed, demanded, proclaimed, pointed at people like a gun to which they must submit or else suffer indeterminate damage, perhaps even the audacity of being shown contempt, because they insist on what is liberty in religion, not mere duress, or in particular for many, the pursuit of Jesus Christ, rather than the  ever changing Caesar of the State!

To suffer, is it to be now because they do not depart from an admirable, constitutionally safeguarded, mode of freedom, with power to prefer, endorse and move in what includes the mode of natural continuance of the human race, reserved in a name matching its functionality and distinctiveness! In particular is the biblical answer to these things, to become cursed and a matter for some kind of socially engineered cure, while its whole approach comes, step by step, to be put under the foot of those whose preference is for what  fails to accord with the natural condition in the creation of children...                                      

WHY seek to IMPOSE this religious innovation, and where is its source to be  found in terms of  logical grounds ? (cf. Bulletins 82, 83, 85). Terminological abuse is not a ground. Why have people, supposed to eliminate discrimination, even been used or applied to enforce it ? It makes Australia look like so much else, even in some ways like the case of the USSR, where its "religious freedom" was not just a farce, but a mockery and a denial of and lead to horrid persecution, which was so well exposed by Solzhenitsyn.


Do you want legal persecution, the Constitution in abeyance,


to make legal fortunes and Madame Defarge nightmares,


a clutter in the courts and the grabbing of fortunes by some,


from others, because they could not in all conscience CONFORM


to a novel set of commands?

A YES vote appears clearly  the easy way to it. It would help some who did not work to gain their awarded funds, use those of others who did work for the power to pay, just because the latter stood by their religious convictions. Injustice here vies with inequity, and both with constitutional fraud. Interference ? this is invasion!

Such a coup and take-over of deep religious issues by the State (cf. Bulletin 87) as is here offering, would be one more case of capitulation to a State moving to dominate in the field of religion, and that sort of thing*3. It is a matter prominent over history for millenia. This is a due matter for every servant of God, therefore, as God Almighty is not identical with the State! This political body may seek to imitate the Creator-Redeemer, but it cannot be Him. It can however ignore His people and prepare them for the legal lions, social assailants or whatever form of assault may be contrived against those who dare not submit to this invasion, first systematically of the Constitution, and then of the nation and thirdly, first in theory and then in practice, of the Church that follows the Bible.

The new look in view thus is poised to make the State's dominance to become domineering and its subjects prisoners of a government whose members were never elected to fulfil such a role.

A PRIOR referendum on whether to eliminate the Article 116 of the Constitution, at least would be needed for any sign of propriety, law and order.

It would of course be much cheaper for it to be spuriously argued that Article 116 does not really mean what it says, that you cannot really do this, that systematic religious control by the Commonwealth (here 'the State') is really a form of liberty, and so on, speciously.

Ignoring it all and doing what you please is the more common option. It is so easy, like a four-lane highway.

Is this to be the way  this land, once noted for great fortitude and independence of spirit, is to go! Wholesale breach of religious liberty, forms, forces and functions, features and the harassment or even banishment of argumentative presentations in terms of a wholly disparate set of values, desires, bases, is not a 'balance' but a blitz*4. Even now, movements to prevent presentations against the innovative approach, are becoming, like the earthquakes and the floods in the earth, highly impactive. Many are trying to use force already!

Systematic containment of what is both another and the former position, legal priority to the novel principle in view, systematic breach of the very essence of the Constitutional restraint, is no balancing act. It is blatant direction and denial at the most fundamental of levels. Instead of 'hands off religious direction and suppression' as the direction, it is rather more like this: 'All of you learn to give prior assent, whatever your religion, to our own moral law, definitional dexterities, conformist commands, ways of thinking, assumed priorities.' Empty of logically sustainable basis (cf. Bulletins 82, 83, 87), it is full of presumption, division and direction.

What then ? While it is a grief that many people do not realise what they are doing, yet it is all the more a spur to warn of consequences, so that those who listen may be delivered from confusion and propaganda, from a profound failure in a nation, impending like a huge tsunami.



It helps for the biblical position  to be known. It is found in such scriptures as Romans 1:17-32, in which we find, for example,  that women in their error, exchanged the natural sexual usage for what is against nature. In parallel, men are found abandoning the natural use of women, an action which Jude and II Peter describe in Sodom and Gomorrah terms, while Paul, in this contrary to nature setting, declares to exhibit a form of lust (Romans 1:27, II Peter 2:6, Jude 7). The penalty for the "error", they receive in themselves, we read. 

In I Timothy 1, we find a specialisation in terminology, for two aspects of same-sex action, in a large list of violations of the will of God not only for the extremely clear creation which He made, but also for certain crimes, things of an entirely different category. Indeed, some of these listed are exceedingly grave and abhorrent. In other words, this error in biblical terms is not taken at all lightly.

As with much that the human race does wrong, even in traffic offences, there might be much that is sound in some situations (a good driver acts skilfully to avoid an accident, but still hits), but the point at issue is this: where is it wrong, why and how much! You can add features, but it is what is wrong that is to the point.

That is the position there. To these may be added I Corinthians 5:9ff., 6:9-10. Here it is made clear that violation of the inbuilt features of sexuality is applicable, in the same absolute way, to adultery (unrepented of as in the other cases) and fornication. In the Old Testament the result is equally fateful, in terms of straight rebellion where the thing is so treated in principle, as seen for example in Leviticus 20:13, 18:22, I Kings 14:24, 15:12. As for abusing the immature bodies of children, at their call, under whatever name, there is Matthew 18:4 to consider.

Mercy is not for rebellion but for repentance in faith in the Provider of the race and the redemption offered.


*2 See on design, Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny.



Not really free ? Fault and default.

When an unqualified Commonwealth-governing item in the Constitution demands non-interference in the field of religious expression, and an unqualified effort to do just this (as been shown in the issues covered in Bulletins 85, 87, 88, for example) is in vogue, what is the point of interpreting it 'narrowly' as is sometimes asserted ? so narrowly that the Constitution no longer provides the basic character of religious liberty, but its very contradiction! That would be narrow indeed...

Is freedom some narrow thing ? Is the distinction from discriminatory rule of tongue and truth by a few, according to taste, to be regarding as too trifling to gauge with fundamental force ? Can States within the Commonwealth be allowed categorically to distort the national profile, with totalitarian tilt ? Has the Commonwealth no national power to over-rule states on issues which are appointed for it ? Even if some legal wriggle allows such a thing formally, by some remarkable minimisation of the utter fundamentals of society and Constitution, is rule of the country by what is in effect a religious sect, to be smiled upon ? Is this to be the tune with its democracy, its often touted non-discriminatory approach and constant protests about other peoples abusing freedoms ?

Is indeed the SYSTEM of belief relationships in this country, to be subjected to the lash of law and imperious directions even about modes of speech and perspective and morals and relationship to the commands of that God Almighty to whom the Preamble to the Constitution made reference in terms of their action ?

Is it to be treated as trash,


 made to be the butt of persecutory social cant,


so that even 'counselling' and others of the Communist type of dictation
to  conscience, logic and behaviour, proceed with their tight prejudice ?

Is this land, then,  by whatever means and with whatever quibbles or downgrading of fundamentals, even to the point of systematic abuse of their priorities and relevance, to become


an atheist or agnostic reserve, if not by admission yet by commission (Bulletin 85),


a country of confusion, of double-speak,
double-mindedness healed by straight abuse, fines, or worse,
attacks on the integrity of those who do not buy this innovative, anti-DNA approach!

Decrying now as persecution what speaks differently, in order to have liberty, with whatever else, and then acting to persecute the others, would appear the most perverse abuse of any sort of principle of equity that could be imagined. If it is not fraud, it is hard to see how such a description could rationally be avoided.

For a beautiful character in a country may be built up, in our case with emphasis on Christian principles and practice, reflected in statistics heavily in the nineteen sixties and though now less, yet broad, is difficult. To destroy it in terms of crass control of mouth and efforts to do the same to mind and social milieu, educational monopoly, as history shows with some vim, is ... not so hard.

It is the same with an economic fortune. It may be built up with care and control, and lost with caprice and self-indulgence. Ignoring history and demanding departure of the Lord (the USSR did this dramatically - He was to go bag and baggage!) is always possible, since He has given liberty. Acting as if man were the central authority in the universe is quite a dramatic escalation of the powers of our human race.



What is in many ways an excellent article in found in The Australian, September 1, 2017, under Legal Affairs, headed, "A deeper debate on gay marriage is needed in order to protect freedoms." Cited for example is the Wilberforce Foundation statement, recently issued, demanding a level of judicial and judicious debate from lawyers that is more than skin deep, dealing in depth and with knowledgeable precision with this issue, as with any other legal challenge. Criticism of some failures here is not surprisingly supplied.

Indeed, ludicrous is it, it declares, to expect the community to decide on a novel right when it is substantially unclear how it would affect existing rights!

This article is backed by another, a lively exposition including personal findings from a prominent lawyer who deems the unreasoning prejudice now involved, the hostile demeaning of those who do not agree with the innovation, worse than what she suffered under any type of racism (Karina Okotel),  is to be noted, and is gratifying.

Why ? It is because it shows some sign of an Australia beginning to awake to what is rightly deemed one of the greatest changes ever proposed to this nation. Dismissing all the broken restraints, impelling presuppositions and religious perspectives involved is no more appropriate than it would be to dismiss the use of nerve gas on the grounds that it does not visibly expose blood. It is what lies underneath that matters, and what it is conducive to do that matters.

See also Bulletin 87 as marked.