“Marriage Alliance” Launched in Australia

manif pour tous

A major organised block of opposition to the so-called “marriage equality” push in Australia has been launched today. Marriage Alliance is an association of individuals and groups who plan to push back against the continued erosion of traditional institutions such as the family by self-declared “progressives”. Their webpage states that:

Marriage Alliance is a new organisation focused on retaining the current definition of marriage.

There has been a lot of talk about what some people will gain in the same sex marriage debate. But not a lot about the rights all of us will lose.

Before politicians vote on this issue it is important to consider the effects on our children.

The rights of parents when educating their children.

The rights of business owners and employees.

The right to express one’s opinion.

Marriage Alliance is focused on ensuring all Australians are aware of what they stand to lose with any re-definition of marriage.

The Sydney Traditionalist Forum will also be involved in the push-back against this latest attempt to undermine the family as the oldest institution of cultural transmission. We encourage those who wish to contribute to the push-back to contact Marriage Alliance directly and register their support.

– SydneyTrads Editors

SydneyTrads is the internet portal and communication page of the Sydney Traditionalist Forum: an association of young professionals who form part of the Australian independent right (also known as “dissident right” or “outer right”).

STF Poster - only ignorant people disbelieve evolution - homosexuality is perfectly rational

18 Comments on "“Marriage Alliance” Launched in Australia"

  1. Good on you for taking a stand! What Australia needs are people like you who have the courage to say what a lot of people are thinking but are afraid to “come out” in public because of political correctness.

    • I agree. Good on you Marriage Alliance.

      • What Marriage Alliance needs now are foot-soldiers on the street or people to help out with logistical support. If you have any spare time, please contact them and lend a helping hand. Alternatively, let other people know about this campaign – if you can’t help, maybe somebody in your network can?

  2. Finally! I was waiting for someone in Australia to get their act together and organize for this. Why is is that in a free society (so-called) people can’t oppose a major social reform without being called names? All the talk about tolerance and diversity doesn’t mask the fact that the gay community and its “allies” is acting in the most intolerant way! They have their freedom of speech all right, but others have the right to judge them as the totalitarians they are.

    • Thank you Emma. You are right to call our opponents “totalitarian”. They espouse free thinking and tolerance but their politics is absolutist and leads to unspeakable tragedy. We’ve written about the “dangers of enlightened foolery” before, but it is difficult to reason with people who seem incapable of rational thought. The totalitarian mentality is fundamentally emotive and therefore near impossible to reason with.

    • This debate is far too defined by religion and religious arguments for my liking. It’s important to point out that there are perfectly rational grounds for opposing gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that has predated the State and Christianity, this should have nothing to do with Christians or “Bible-bashers”. No society, no matter what its religious or cultural foundations can exist without the basic family unit being comprised of a man and a woman. It amazes me that the bleeding obvious now has to be explained. Without normative morality (and normative sexual taboos) there simply wouldn’t be a “next generation” to speak of. People often also forget things such as the following:


      And this is from the abstract:

      The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.

      If those supporting “marriage equality” feel that they won’t be affected by these changes, think again:


      • The work of Mark Regnerus is indispensable to the current debate about homosexual marriage. Here is a short list of article he has recently published challenging popularly held views about the benign nature of alternative sexual lifestyles on children and society. In “Is Same-Sex Parenting Better for Kids? The New Australian Study Can’t Tell Us“, which was published 9 July 2014, he describes how the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families’ findings are not credible due to the way that study samples have been selected by the researchers. Basically, the researchers used what Regnerus refers to as “Non-Random Samples” which cause “Social Desirability Bias”. In other words, it’s advocacy research, more politics than science. He writes:

        It’s not the first time this approach has met with considerable publication and media success. The ACHESS study is a lot like the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), except that it’s larger and newer. I realize that 500 cases is not a number to scoff at, and that such populations are a small minority to begin with. But until social scientists decide to do the difficult, expensive work of locating same-sex attracted parents (however defined) through random, population-based sampling strategies—preferably ones that do not “give away” the primary research question(s) up front, as ACHESS did—we simply cannot know whether claims like “no differences” or “happier and healthier than” are true, valid, and on target. Why? Because this non-random sample reflects those who actively pursued participating in the study, personal and political motivations included. In such a charged environment, the public—including judges and media—would do well to demand better-quality research designs, not just results they approve of.

        This has to be remembered next time some pro-gay-marriage advocate throws “studies” or “science” into our face.

    • Mr. Marcomatic | 7 August 2015 at 5:40pm | Reply

      Marriage Alliance will look back at this day in history and realise it should have started the campaign at least a decade ago. Unfortunately, most people have been brainwashed into thinking that this push for “gay marriage” is a civil rights issue – of course it is not.

      This has nothing to do with “equality”, but the left has managed to hijack the language with constant references to so-called “marriage equality”. Yet homosexuals have always had the right to marryjust not each other because that simply isn’t a marriage. What they are now demanding however is that the family be redefined to include things that have nothing to do with a family or marriage.

      If indeed Marriage Alliance’s campaign is discriminatory, as some have suggested in the media, it is discrimination in favour of natural law and institutions without which society and civilisation simply would not exists. It should be repeated time and time again, there is nothing morally repugnant about this kind of “discrimination”.

      Times may be changing in favour of the gay-lobby’s incessant demands for special rights, but let’s not forget that the values and culture they are promoting is anti-natal and lead to a demographic dead end. Although Marriage Alliance will probably lose this battle, this is likely to be the homo-left’s time in the sun. There is no reason to think that the pendulum won’t swing back in the near future.


      • Of course procreation itself doesn’t require marriage, and marriage doesn’t require procreation, but if we want to live in human civilised society (and not some tribe of savage bonobo apes) then procreation and marriage must exist in a culture where certain behaviours are (a) proscribed and others are (b) prohibited.

        Customs and moral norms exist to ensure that our delicate social balance is not disturbed, a balance where men and woman form relationships of mutual benefit based on a system of exchange where each does what is socially expected by the other. Interfering with that system moves us so much closer to the bonobo ape model of society that we see among, for example, the US black population or other societies where promiscuity and sexual chaos rule.

        These customs and norms have existed since before the advent of Christianity. “Progress” on the other hand, seems to always result in more anarchy than “liberation” from religious superstition. That – of course – affects all of society, not just the poor fools who fall for the liberal mantras.

  3. Geoffrey Hoy | 4 August 2015 at 4:29pm | Reply

    Good for you. Sick of these pollies try to change us to appease the minority groups. Let’s get this country back on a moral and descent keel.

  4. This must go to a national referendum they obviously strenuously do not want this because the answer will be no!

    • Precisely. As with most Culture War defeats, this is hardly a democratic process. Those who decide on these issues are political hacks with vested pressure-group interests who get into Parliament on the basis of party affiliation and media driven hype. Politics has been reduced to the manipulation of tribal loyalties through creative marketing. That’s Western democracy for the twenty first century.

      • Democracy? When was the last time we the people voted on anything in Australia? And I don’t count state or national elections where we are presented two major parties superficially the same but deeply identical.

        If my memory serves me well, the last real vote was in 1999: the Australian republic referendum. And we all know that the result was a “no”.

        I guess the culture shapers fear the same result if this ridiculous vote – to redefine the term “marriage” – were to go to the public.

  5. Vague, abstract statements like “marriage equality” never make persuasive arguments to thinking people. They conceal the real objective which is often far from anything related to “marriage” or “equality”.

    The founders, owners, operators, workers, volunteers, and — most of all — the financial sponsors of this mystery movement for redefining marriage at law are all either anonymous, or arch-leftist authoritarians who want to write their moral depravity into the laws affecting everybody else.

    They refuse to identify themselves, or can’t explain their arguments beyond vague and abstract appeals to so called “equality”, so no one should fall for any of their claims.

  6. Its small minded minority people that try to push their own “morality” on all Australians. The decision to block the legislation was ironically a far more democratic move than what Labor and the left want to push down our throat. People who criticise Marriage Alliance for opposing these so-called reforms to our law should be reminded that freedom of information and speech work both ways.

  7. K A Cook, who describes their self (seriously, read the author bio in the above linked pingback) as “a masculine presenting, genderless, aromatic, feminist queer driven to write about non-binary and unconventional souls, mental illness, chronic pain and strong woman” … has been “driven” to describe us as “a horrifically right-wing publication” and furthermore, that our “use of scare-quotes is insulting to anyone with a brain.”

    Really, who could ask for a better endorsement. The dissident right’s biggest asset is the envelope-pushing sex-fetishist left: if only mainstream society could meet, face-to-face, the parochial interests pushing for the continued liberalisation of sexual norms, and truly understand what these people represent, there’d surely be more people standing with the “unconventional souls” on the vanguard of reaction. We welcome Cook’s denunciation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.