Here’s an important Heritage foundation panel discussion held in the United States a couple of days ago. The panel contributors include Ryan Bomberger who I have a growing admiration for, because his work through the Radiance Foundation.

The group discusses how anti-discrimination laws are being used as a sword, rather than a shield to impose an ideology and punish those who stand opposed to it.

The panel also addresses the false equivalency that is made between the abhorrent Jim Crow laws, and someone declining to serve/make/create based on a conscientious objection to gay marriage.

I’m in agreement with them.

I especially liked the reasons for a defence of traditional marriage, and the response to government involvement given by Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior research fellow, Ryan T. Anderson, at the close of the discussion [see 46:25 – 47:18].

“Man-made law should recognise the natural law, which looks to human nature and what marriage is. That marriage is based on three secular truths.

First, anthropological truth, that man and woman are distinct and complimentary. Second, the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman; and finally a social reality that children deserve a mum and a dad.

You put those three pieces together and you going to have a basic understanding of what marriage is and our man-made laws should reflect that.

Apart from that it’s not clear to me why the government is consenting ratification of romance business. Once we get away from the man-woman, husband and wife, mother/father understanding of what marriage is, I don’t see what role the state has in regulating consenting adults sexual or romantic relationships.”

In September, I contributed four articles to the Same-sex marriage debate in Australia. All graciously republished by the up and coming conservative/libertarian platform for free speech, edgy, online news magazine XYZ.net.au

1. Nein: Why I will be voting “No” To Same-Sex Marriage 

2. Still Nein: A Response To Janet Albrecthsen’s Libertarian Conservative “Yes” To SSM

3. Biology Is Not a Social Construct: Why “p” Cannot Equal “q” Without Perpetual Revolution

4. A “No” To SSM, is a “Yes” to Freedom, Not a Denial of it

It’s okay to vote “no”.