20150824-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Same Sex Relationships and The Constitution

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
24-8-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:
10
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Scott Morrison Scott.Morrison.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150824-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Same Sex relationships and the Constitution.
Tony,
15
why the sudden rush to have same sex marriage issues to be forced ahead? Bill Shorten
indicated to legislate within 100 days if he was to come into office. Why the rush?
Then we have the homosexual lobby groups claiming they cannot wait for a plebiscite as it takes
too long. Why the rush?
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
I understand from media reports that Scott Morrison claims a referendum is needed, and my
set out below may assist to understand, as I wrote about in the past, that indeed a referendum
would be required.
Thu, 31 Oct 2002
QUOTE
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case involving women or
a male judge in a rape case.
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that
power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of
the Constitution might be required. Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel
legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
END QUOTE
Obviously s51(xxxvii) as French J (Now French CJ of the High Court of Australia) indicated that
it is not a section that provides powers for the states but merely for the Commonwealth to accept
it. As the marriage powers is one of the Commonwealth the states then cannot somehow
provide reference of legislative powers it never had. And as the marriage powers is limited to
one man and one woman then it cannot be broadened without an amendment of the
constitution. As for a cooperative federation it cannot be in regards of something to which the
states have no legislative powers in the first place.
Any amendment however if not carefully scrutinised by a CONSTITUTIONALIST such as
myself may result that multiple marriages, paedophilia, bestiality, etc, may be introduced. Hence,
any hasty changes may turn out to be achieving something the courts may hold is permissible
even so never contemplated and/or intended at the time when any amendment of the constitution
and/or legislation has been provided for.
50
p1
24-8-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
2
There are people who rely upon that the High Court of Australia in overturning ACT legislation
for homosexual marriages so to say gave the green light for the Federal Parliament to do so, I
have quite frankly not read the judgment as I view far too often the High Court of Australia is out
of line with the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.
The Framers of the Constitution provided in the constitution for the Commonwealth to legislate
as to (v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;, at that time the Internet didnt
exist but that is why they added and other like services as the Framers of the Constitution
were well aware progress would be make in that area. Like other new service to talk via a
telephone overseas, now including Internet, etc.
So why not then just accept Members of Parliament to voter if the definition of marriage should
be of any person of whatever gender who desire to marry?
.
15
20
25
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
Homosexuality may have been practised for centuries, so has murders, robberies, rapes,
paedophilia, etc. As such to accept something is acceptable because it has been eventuating for
centuries hardly can be to justify some conduct.
.
One has to look at why did the Framers of the Constitution provides the marriage powers to the
Commonwealth?
.
30
35
40
Reading the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates records it was clear that they wanted to
stop where a father having obtained court orders to have access to the child then the mother took
the child to another Colony and then the father had to start to litigate all over again in another
Colony. The mother then could take the child ongoing to different Colonies and this would result
in endless court litigation. As such to deal with this kind of problem it was held that to give the
Commonwealth legislative powers then the orders would be enforceable throughout the
Commonwealth. Avoiding re-litigating the same at huge cost.
Clearly the principle issue was that of the child, that once a court order was in place no further
litigation for the same concerning the child was needed.
Homosexuality, as earlier indicated, existed for centuries but still at the time of the Framers of
the Constitution debating the creation of the federal compact didnt hold this to be as marriage
issue, at least not that I have been able to locate.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
45
(xxi) marriage;
(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto,
END QUOTE
.
50
55
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable
that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should
be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.
END QUOTE
p2
24-8-2015
10
15
20
25
3
As such, I view that unless homosexual relationships or for that matter community relationships
(multi number of persons of one or more sexes) including paedophilia relationships can be
deemed to fall within the category of marriage as held by the Framers of the Constitution as
well as by the British Parliament then one must accept that it is excluded.
.
The Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict c 63) was an Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. An Act for consolidating enactments relating to the Construction of Acts of Parliament and for
further shortening the Language used in Acts of Parliament. Royal Assent 30 August 1889,
Commencement 1 January 1890. As such the wording of the constitution such as marriage
must be interpreted as to what it stood for at the time the constitution was created.
.
Because it is unique in that the part 9 is subject to s128 referendum it means that any changes of
the Interpretation Act 1889 after federation is not relevant. Neither can the Acts Interpretation
Act 1904 (Cth) have any affect upon the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Below I quote about the Bouvier 1956 dictionary as to marriage. Also about the difference
between a married couple and unmarried. Albeit Bouvier makes clear that couples living together
(so called De facto) were still recognised as married if for the community they were husband
and wife.
.
Therefore, this whole argument about Same Sex marriage seems to be more to do with greed
then to do with love as is pretended.
Same sex couples, generally referred to as homosexuals are living together very often and as
such create their own kind of relationships. They are not discriminated against because of their
kind of love as society has tolerated them to live their lives in their own privacy.
How can we make a reasonable comparison between a marriage between a man and a woman
and 2 of the same gender. I will try.
.
30
35
40
45
An employer had employees working full time and others part time. The full time employees are
working on a rostered period of time and bound to work a minimum number of hours, etc. Often
they receive special training for their positions, they receive long service leave after working for
a number of years, as a way to try to reward employees as well as a way to attract employees to
stay on as to avoid huge turnovers.
Part time employees are rewarded differently, and generally have not the same provisions and
services. A part timer hardly could be expected to get the same rewards as a full time employee.
With the same sex couples much is the same, they are for example naturally not able to produce a
child between them and so cannot demand the same status as those marriages between a man and
a woman.
.
We have many professionals doing a job that at times is done better by a non-professional. I for
example have assisted/represented lawyers as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and a Professional
Advocate (now retired) does this mean I can then assume to be a lawyer and demand the same
rights, etc? As such the issue that same sex couples may be able to have a relationship better than
a heterosexual couple or the same is not an argument that can be used.
.
50
What it really is about is about greed that those in a same sex relationship demand to have the
same rights and privileges as heterosexual relationships but without the same ability to perform
likewise, such as producing a child between them.
Also, as statistics in Canada shows the marriage rates of same sex couples is really very low.
As such forget about love being the issue of marriage.
Another major issue is that we have an imbedded legal principles in our constitution:
p3
24-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
We have reports that where same sex (homosexual) marriages are permitted businesses that
refuse to provide service to them on religious grounds are then punished severely. Clearly a gross
denial of their political and religious liberty.
Again:
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
Therefore it is not up to some government to decide if we can or cannot exercise our political/
religious liberties, for it to decide to provide exemption or not.
Why on earth should a person not wanting to provide services (wedding cake, celebrant, etc)
relating to a same sex wedding be fined for refusing to do so?
It is no good to argue that the government will make sure that such draconically laws will not be
accepted because far too often a politician makes a statement and then later act in total opposition
to it. And in any event other politicians subsequently in power will pursue their own agenda.
Are we going to have an amendment in the constitution that a marriage is between persons of
whatever gender, but not as to compel anyone to provide service for such marriage related
ceremony?
I doubt it because the homosexual lobby group will so to say be screaming blue murder it
discriminate against them.
p4
24-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
5
As such, it is not the marriage itself but to force the wider community to accept their
homosexual activities. Indeed, in Canada this is now part in the education system where small
children at playgroup are taught homosexuality is ok.
The rights of parents and their political/religious liberties to bring up their children as they
deem appropriate is eroded if not totally undermined.
In my view a government should stick to education such as maths, languages, science and other
traditional forms of education but not descent into the parental rights area to brainwash children
into accepting homosexuality.
While homosexuals desire to have the same rights as hetero sexual couples they cannot be forced
to have a child, in fact cannot produce a child between them. And, the right of the child to have
a father and a mother somehow is not relevant to homosexuals. A child is merely so to say an
of the shelve item, they can pick and choose to their desire.
It should be accepted that in a natural way no same sex (homosexual) couple can produce a child
between them, and as such it is an unnatural relationship when it comes to marriage.
Granted, at time heterosexual couples neither can produce a child but that might be because of
age, health problems but ordinary they can.
Below I quote some other issues. While the Federal Government is all about people giving up
smoking because of associate health problems, little or nothing about that homosexual
relationships can result in serious health problems.
Also the issues relating to children who grew up in a same sex (homosexual) relationship and
oppose it because of the harm that was inflicted upon them, to which they have to live with for
the rest of their lives. So the children are so to say sacrifices as lambs as an appeasement for the
homosexual lobby (not just between men but also between women).
There is a lot more to it all but for the moment it ought to make clear that this is more than
just political leadership of a vote regarding homosexual marriages. After all as already
now in the U.S.A is emerging the homosexual lobby reportedly now desire to lower the age
of consent and so paedophilia is the next issue to be forced to be accepted.
A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law by John Bouvier
Ignoratis terminis ignoratur et ars. - Co. Litt. 2 a.
Je sais que chaque science et chaque art a ses termes
propres, inconnu au commun des hommes. - Fleury
SIXTH EDITION, REVISED, IMPROVED, AND GREATLY ENLARGED.
QUOTE
MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free
woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist
between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that
they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl.
Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.
2. To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually
contracted.
3.-1. They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of
intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infant; males under the age of
fourteen, and females under the age of twelve, and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the
consent of their parents or guardians.
4. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter
intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune,
as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if
he marry a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not
p5
24-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the
person. Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 9.
5. When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void
ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in
question. 2 Kent, Com. 66; Shelf. on Marr. and Div. 199; 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 246; 5 Paige, 43.
6.-2. Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to
contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may
be enumerated.
7.-1. The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.
8.-2. Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in
the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages
are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees,
by clear and established principles. Vaugh. 206; S. C. 2 Vent. 9. In several of the United States, marriages
within the limited degrees are made void by statute. 2 Kent, Com. 79; Vide Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 7.
9.-3. Impotency, (q.v.) which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable. 2 Phillim.
Rep. 10; 2 Hagg. Rep. 832.
10.-4. Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with
another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of
his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. Poth. Contr. de Mariage, part 3, c. 3, art. 7. And
the same provision exists in the French code civil, art. 298. See 1 Toull. n. 555.
11.-3. The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.
12. The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of
the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that
is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de
futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve,
if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage;
the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently
confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and
reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for
bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18
John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by
any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of
an action for damages.
13. In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and
Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or
ordained minister of the gospel. 7 Mass. Rep. 48; 2 Greenl. Rep. 102. The statute of Connecticut on this
subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous
publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey
its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the
statutes had not been observed. Reeve's Dom. Rel. 196, 200, 290. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the
marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. 2 Watts, Rep. 9; 1 How. S. C.
R. 219. The same rule probably
obtains in New Jersey; 2 Halsted, 138; New Hampshire; 2 N. H. Rep.
268; and Kentucky. 3 Marsh. R. 370. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the
parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest
or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of
three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated
the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. Code, art. 101 to 107. The 89th article of the Code declares,
that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules
which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not
evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act
exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are
authorized to celebrate marriage. 6 L. R. 470.
14. A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this
country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled
principles and policy of our laws. Story, Confl. of Laws, Sec. 87; Shelf. on M. & D. 140; 1 Bland. 188; 2
Bland. 485; 3 John. Ch. R. 190; 8 Ala. R. 48.
15. Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It
is dissolved by death or divorce.
16. In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved
in order to convict the accused. See 6 Conn. R. 446. This rule is much qualified. See Bigamy.
p6
24-8-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
17. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment
by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their
correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife; 2 Bl. R. 899; declaring,
deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country; 2 Moo. & R. 503; describing their children, in
parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring; 2 Str. 1073; 8 Ves. 417; or when the parties pass
for husband and wife by common reputation. 1 Bl. R. 639; S. C. 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 174; Cowp. 594; 3
Swans. R. 400; 8 S. & R. 159; 2 Hayw. R. 3; 1 Taylor, R. 121; 1 H. & McH. 152; 2 N. & McC. 114; 5 Day,
R. 290; 4 R. & M. 507; 9 Mass. R. 414; 4 John. 52; 18 John. 346. After their death, the presumption is
generally conclusive. Cowp. 591; 6 T. R. 330.
18. The civil effects of marriage are the following: 1. It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the
parties.
19.-2. It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely,
and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband
right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and
after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's
death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he
dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.
20.-3. It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.
21.-4. It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.
22.-5. The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is
the head: erunt duo in carne una.
23.-6. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband.
24.-7. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicil and gains that of her husband.
25.-8. One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.
26.-9. The children acquire the domicil of their father.
27.-10. It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage,
the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their
kin.
28.-11. It makes all the issue legitimate.
Vide, generally, 1 Bl. Com. 433; 15 Vin. Ab. 252; Bac. Ab. h.t.; Com. Dig. Baron and Feme, B; Id. Appx.
b. t.; 2 Sell. Pr. 194; Ayl. Parergon, 359; 1 Bro. Civ. Law, 94; Rutherf. Inst. 162; 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. 334;
Roper on Husband & Wife; Poynter on Marriage and Divorce; Merl. Repert. h.t.; Pothier, Traite du Contrat
de Marriage; Toullier, h.t.; Chit. Pract. Index, h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t., Burge on the Confl. of Laws, Index,
h.t.; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
END QUOTE
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/marriage-and-partnering/page-3
QUOTE
40
45
To a great extent, marriage retained its privileged status for much of the 20th century. It entitled spouses to
rights that were not available to unmarried people, whether in sexual relationships or not.
These rights were wide-ranging. For example the family benefit was only available to married women, and a
joint family home was exempt from gift duty, stamp duty and death duty, and could not be seized by
creditors. A spouse could not be compelled to give evidence against the other spouse (unless the crime was
against them). A wife who assisted her husband after he had committed an offence could not be charged with
being an accessory to it. The higher wage paid to all men was justified on the grounds that they were, or
would be, married and supporting a family.
END QUOTE
50
http://www.freenorthamerica.ca/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10397
QUOTE
Anal Cancer is extremely rare amongst heterosexual men, but is becoming more common amongst homosexuals, especially if they are
HIV and HPV positive. "Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men." Atlanta
Center for Disease Control
55
60
A homosexual at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco allows himself to be urinated on by one homosexual while giving oral sex to
another homosexual on a public street. In reality few homosexuals marry and fewer yet are monogamous, actually almost none. So the
next logical question for Tony to answer is what about non-monogamous homosexuals? If they claim to be Christian what do you think
the church is supposed to do about them? "83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in
their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners." Bell and Weinberg
The truth is "Marriage equality" is a more tasteful euphemism to peddle than "sodomy with multiple partners equality," though the
latter better describes the pro-homosexual cause that Campolo is championing.
p7
24-8-2015
Homosexual male with a cancerous form of HPV of the rectum. Infections with HPV and anal cancer are common amongst homosexuals,
with one large study at University of California San Fransisco detecting HPV in 61% of HIV negative and 93% of HIV-positive
homosexual and bisexual men.
Karposi Sarcoma. Prior to the AIDS outbreak Karposi Sarcoma was an extremely rare skin cancer, however thanks to homosexual
promiscuity and the resulting AIDS epedemic the cancer is more common now and is mostly known for afflicting late stage AIDS victims.
However, in 2008 French skin specialists have discovered Karposi Sarcoma amongst middle aged homosexuals who were HIV negative.
END QUOTE
10
Marriage & the gender game, what you mentally consider to be and forget about your genitals!
15
The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/264534966/20150508-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-to-Mr-TonyAbbott-Pm-re-the-Marriage-Issue
QUOTE
http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/
20
Indoctrination of youth was a highly successful strategy of Hitler. (But for very different objectives. Admin.)
This could come (has come) to Australia already we have a Safe Schools project. Let us contact our
elected representatives about our concerns. (Editorial comment)
Give me a child to the age of seven, and Ill give you the man.
25
Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay marriage, starting at 4-years-old
LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski
30
TORONTO, April 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com <http://LifeSiteNews.com> ) -- A primary grade lesbian
teacher from an Ontario public school revealed in a workshop at a homosexual activist conference for
teachers earlier this month how she uses her classroom to convince children as young as four to accept
homosexual relationships.
35
40
45
50
And I started in Kindergarten. What a great place to start. It was where I was teaching. So, I was the most
comfortable there, Pam Strong said at the conference, attended by LifeSiteNews.
The conference, hosted by the homosexual activist organization Jers Vision, now called the Canadian Centre
for Gender and Sexual Diversity, focused on the implementation of Bill 13 in Ontario classrooms. Bill 13,
called by critics the homosexual bill of rights, passed in June 2012 and gave students the right to form progay clubs in their school, including Catholic ones, using the name Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA).
Strong, who is in an open relationship with another woman and who has been a teacher for about five years,
focused her workshop on what she called the power of conversation for promoting LGBTQ issues in an
elementary classroom. She began her talk by relating how she reacted the first time one of her students called
another student gay as a putdown.
With [the principals] encouragement, we decided that I would go from class to class and talk about what
gay means, what does LGBTQ mean, what do I mean, she told about 40 attendees, all educators, at her
workshop.
Strong related how she began with the junior kindergarten class.
55
60
And I read a [pro-gay childs] book [King and King], and I started to realize that conversations can be very
difficult, and they can have the most power when they are the most difficult.
But difficult conversations are a part of what we do as teachers, right? And when these conversations are
properly supported by teachers within the safety of the classroom, they provide a rich environment for our
students as they unpack these complex social issues and they reflect on their own preconceptions, rights, of
gender, sexuality, love, all these different things, she said.
p8
24-8-2015
9
Strong related that as she was reading King and King in the junior kindergarten class as a springboard to
discuss her sexuality with the kids, she got to the part where the two princes become married when one of
the boys suddenly shouted out: They cant do that! They cant get married. Theyre two boys.
5
Recounted Strong: And I said, Oh, yeah, yeah, they can. Its right here on page 12.
To which the boy replied, according to Strong: Oh, yeah, I know Mrs. Strong, but thats just a story. Thats
not real life.
10
And I said: It happens in real life too. I am married to a woman. I am gay. And I am in love with my wife.
Strong said the young children just all kind of went silent. She then told them: That may seem different to
you, how many of you have heard of that before?
15
Not one hand went up, she related. And so I said: That may seem different to you, but were not that
different. Would you like to know about what I do with my family?
Yeah, tell us, she recounted the children enthusiastically saying.
20
I said, you know, we take our kids to the park. I swing them on swings, she related, telling conference
attendees that she could share things she did with her own children that mostly likely all of their families did
with them.
25
Then she told the children: We laugh together. We go grocery shopping together. I read to them. I tickle
them, sometimes until they scream and laugh and when they cry, I hug them until they stop.
Strong said that at that point, the boy who had used the word gay looked and her and said: Well, youre a
family.
30
And I said, yeah, we are, she related. And off I go to the next classroom.
Strong said that she went from class to class to class and continued with these conversations, and they were
very powerful.
35
Its normal in my classroom
Strong related an incident that happened last fall involving a new boy who had recently entered her grade 5
classroom. The new boy had not yet been made aware of Strongs sexual preference for other women.
40
All my class is very used to who I am. My family picture is very proudly in my room now. On Mondays
they quite often will say, What did you do with your wife? Its normal in my classroom.
45
50
55
Strong said that a conversation between herself and the students came up one day where it was mentioned
that she was a lesbian. The new boy put his hands over his mouth and said, according to Strong: Oh, my
God, I think Im going to puke.
As I took the abuse personally, as an individual of those words, I also saw half of my class look at me
with incredible concern. One student who was right in front of me already had tears in her eyes. And I
noticed several other students who were looking at him. They were just very, very upset with this kid, she
related.
Strong said the boy instantly became aware that something he had said had just created this unbelievable
tension in the room. She related how she addressed the boy, telling him: I think that what you might not be
aware of is that I am gay, and I am married to a woman, and my family has two moms.
His eyes just started darting around, and he was incredibly uncomfortable, she related.
60
I looked at the other kids and I said: Ok guys, what I want to ask you is: Am I upset with him? And the one
little girl in my class put up her hand that doesnt usually get into these conversations very much in my
classroom and she said, Mrs Strong, I know youre not upset with him, because he hasnt had the benefit
p9
24-8-2015
10
of our conversations.
And I looked at my little friend, my new friend, and I said: But, were going to have one now, she
related.
5
Strong said that she then directed her class to the board and asked them to write everything she had told them
related to LGBTQ.
10
15
And my class all of a sudden popped up. LGBTQ was on the board, lesbian, and all the different words
coming out there. And I sat back and said, Lets review. So, the last year and a half of inclusive education
came alive in my classroom.
Strong told her workshop attendees that her new little friend is now a devoted champion of diversity. She
boasted how he was the one in her class to count down the days to the pro-homosexual Day of Pink that took
place earlier this month. When Strong took a photo of all the children wearing pink shirts in her classroom,
she said the boy requested to be in the front.
For me, that is the power of conversations. Thats the power of sharing our stories, she said.
20
LGBTQ classroom conversation starters

Strong called it key to develop a positive classroom culture and she mentioned it often takes months
before getting into what she called difficult conversations with students about convincing students of the
normality of her sexual preference for women.
25
She mentioned how she spends time building a common vocabulary in her classroom of words like
stereotype, prejudice, discrimination so her students will be able to more readily conform to her proLGBTQ message.
30
35
40
Sometimes with these big ideas there are also very big words that are very hard to understand. I find that
whether its kindergarten, right up to grade six, visuals help a lot, she said.
The lesbian teacher has amassed a collection of conversation starters that she says helps get her started
when presenting to her students the LGBTQ message. She said pro-gay childrens books are one of her
favorites.
I use current events, news articles, advertisement are great for gender, especially with Kindergarten kids,
pink and girl toys and all the rest of it. Commercials are great, I use one right now, the Honey Maid
commercial. The 2014 Dad & Papa <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMMn6oVtOc> " commercial
depicts two male same-sex partners engaging with their children in normal family activities such as eating
dinner around the table, and walking in the park.
Strong says she watches the commercial with her students up to three times, asking them to make a list of all
the similarities between the gay-partnership and their own families.
45
Of course they think its going to be so different, [that] this family is going to be so different, she said.
50
Strong said the kids notice dozens of similarities, but usually only one difference, namely that the commercial
has two dads. Other than this, she said the students could not find one thing in that commercial that was
different than their own families. In this way she convinces the kids that a gay-partnership is identical to a
family made up of a male and female. Strong called it a fantastic lesson for kids of all ages.
There was nothing left for me to teach at the end of it. It was a huge learning for some kids, she said.
55
Recruiting children? You bet we are

Though homosexual activists claim their efforts in the schools are a way of combating bullying, a number of
homosexual activists have highlighted that the movements goal is in fact to indoctrinate children into
accepting the normality of the homosexual lifestyle.
60
I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn't indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and
p10
24-8-2015
11
lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie, wrote Canadian gay activist Sason Bear Bergman,
a woman who identifies as a transgender man, in a March 2015 piece
<https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activist-our-goal-is-to-indoctrinate-children-into-lgbtq-agenda>
titled I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I'm Not a Bit Sorry).
Bergman holds nothing back, stating she wants to make children like us even if that goes against the way
you have interpreted the teachings of your religion.
In 2011 U.S. gay activist Daniel Villarreal penned a column <http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-juststart-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/> for Queerty.com stating that the
time had come for the homosexual lobby to admit to indoctrinating schoolchildren to accept
homosexuality.
10
Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical
contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as
normal?
15
We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future
depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are, he added.
20
Homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote

<http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/chapters/Chapter-13.pdf> in 1987 in the
Gay Community News that school children would become explicit targets for homosexual indoctrination.
We shall seduce them in your schoolsThey will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore
us, he wrote at the time.
25
Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-teacher-how-i-convince-kids-to-accept-gay-marriagestarting-at-4-ye
END QUOTE
30
QUOTE EMAIL
The No Difference Theory Debunked.
Jim
35
May 16 at 5:09 PM
To
The No Difference Theory Debunked
40
Written by Damien Murphy
Created: 08 April 2015
45
One of the main arguments proponents of same-sex marriage bring up is that there is no difference between
children who are reared by a mother and a father, and children who are brought up by same-sex couples.
However, in a recent study called Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference
by DefinitionPaul Sullins, an American sociologist, shows how this is a myth.
50
There have been dozens of studies over the past two decades supposedly bolstering this no difference myth.
However these results have come under question recently, mainly because of substantial weaknesses in many
of the studies, and the fact that new studies designed to overcome those weaknesses have discovered poorer
outcomes.
55
Both critics and defenders of these studies agree that a critical issue has been the lack of sufficiently large
random samples of the small population of same-sex couples. This led to the persistent use of small, nonrepresentative samples. Sullins notes Rosenfeld, a defender, observes that the mean sample size of children
with same-sex parents in the literature was only 39 cases. And [o]nly four studies used a probability
p11
24-8-2015
12
(random) sample; the largest of these included only 44 same-sex families. While another forty-five studies
usually recruited from homophile sources such as LGBT events.[1]
Paul Sullins on the other hand, based his research on the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 1997
to 2013. The NHIS was also clear in defining same-sex couples as those who said their partner was their
spouse. Thus, he was able to study 512 children, a big enough number to be representative. He found the
biggest difference between children of normal parents and same-sex couples was that they suffer more
emotional problems when brought up by the latter.
10
For example, Sullins found that 7.1% of children raised by normal families suffered from Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) while 15.5% of children reared in same-sex families suffered from
ADHD, more than double. Children with learning disabilities were 8% compared with 14.1%, while children
with serious emotional problems were 7% compared to 17%. [2]
15
Sullins carefully used controls to figure out what was causing the difference. He wanted to make sure
which aspects of the childs life were influencing his upbringing. One of Sullins controls was adoption.
While adopted children generally suffer more emotional problems, only 11% of children adopted by normal
families reported emotional problems. On the other hand, this ratio rose to 22% for children who are adopted
by same-sex couples.
20
Another control was bullying, a frequent argument used by the homosexual movement to explain emotional
problems in their children. Sullins found the difference negligible 19% for children who lived with normal
parents and 15% for those brought up by parents of the same sex. Sullins also studied parental emotional
problems which was 3.4% to 6%. None of these controls fully explained the differences between same-sex
couples and normal couples.[3]
25
Biology, however, played a huge role in explaining the difference. Children raised by same-sex couples
were over twice as likely to have emotional problems. After adjusting for age, race, sex, education and
income, Sullins states that biological ties which are obviously lacking in a homosexual relationship
uniquely and powerfully distinguishes the childs outcome. [4] Sixty-four percent of the children studied
lived with both of their married, biological parents. Of these, only 4.3% reported having emotional
problems.[5]
30
These differences were found in cases of emotional problems, learning disabilities, and ADHD. Children
raised by same-sex couples all fared much worse. Sullins has proved how all the normal excuses; bullying,
adoption, or even parental emotional problems cannot be used. The main difference he found was the lack of
biological ties in same-sex families. The no difference theory simply does not hold water.
35
40
Paul Sullins, Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition,
British Journal of Education, Society, & Behavioural Science, Vol.: 7, Issue 2, published Feb. 18, 2015,
p. 100. Also available at http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?iid=823&id=21&aid=8172.
[2]
Mark Regnerus, New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids do Best with Mom and Dad,
Public Discourse, Feb. 10th, 2015 available at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14417/, accessed
3/11/15.
[3]
Ibid. p. 1
[4]
Sullins, p. 113
[5]
Ibid.
[1]
45
50
Source: http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/the-no-difference-theory-debunked.html
END QUOTE EMAIL
55
QUOTE EMAIL
Father to Marry Son with Courts Blessing?!
Jim
May 21 at 8:53 PM
p12
24-8-2015
13
To
10
15
"That's just like the two gay wealthy U.S. attorneys in their 60's who adopted two male 8 yr old twins, and
taught them both all about the gay lifestyle (and encouraged them to experiment between themselves) as well
as with them. As it turned out, the two boys decided they were attracted to the 2 older men, and NOT each
other. That led the two Older men to separate, when the boys were (I believe 12).
Then by the time they were 17 and I believe referred to as emancipated, the guys had the adoptions legally
revoked, when gay marriage had become legal where they lived. They were all married, and each of the
fathers were ecstatic to each have such attractive young husbands. The only negative incident was that one of
the older guys was into sadomasochism and somehow "his" young twin accidentally died as a result.
Something about a belt being left around the boys throat during sex a little too long, by mistake.
Anyway, the brother and his older Attorney husband and other friends convinced the Legal authorities that it
was definitely an accident, as in love as the two of them seemed, so no charges were filed. After that, he was
welcomed to move back in with the other older gentleman and his young husband's twin son/husband, and the
3 of them reportedly are even happier and closer now than ever. The other twin avoided ever having to pursue
an advanced education, and has everything he could possibly want, and when both of the older guys die he
will now inherit the wealth of both of the 2 older men tax free.
20
What more could a guy want when he's probably only in his 40's with two deceased sugar daddies I believe
they call them. And he won't have to worry about splitting anything with his brother either now. These new
gay marriage laws, "for a means of getting around the legal rules and expenses of the government" are just
the frosting on the cake.
25
30
35
40
The Gay community are a whole lot smarter than the country gives them credit for. Oprah, Ellen and so many
others in Hollywood are such amazing champions to the Gay community. Oprah & Ellen are definitely both
geniuses, and with Obama and the First Lady, Biden and so many others championing Hollywood and the
Gay Community, there is nothing they can't accomplish now. Wow!!! Our generation will never have to
worry about the declining job market, degrees or anything!!! I'm considering looking into this when I turn 19
or 20. Thank you for your inspiration rueangel. I hate school, and you've made this sound like such an easy
way out for our generation. You've probably changed thousands of our lives financially, forever."
Terry
(Reader's comment from article)
----- Original Message ----From: stevelloyd73@gmail.com

To: Darren
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Father to Marry Son with Courts Blessing?!
We know the courts are a little corrupt,...but this bad ?!
45
Begin forwarded message:
50
From: Bob Jones <twoseedlinemessage@yahoo.com>

Date: May 20, 2015 at 10:13:32 PM EDT
Subject: Father to Marry Son with Courts Blessing?!
55
I don't make this stuff up folks! With sodomites marrying with the Courts Blessing everywhere in jew
Defacto Amerika & the Army Allowing Bestiality as "Normal", this is the next Step that "Incest" is now
OKIE DOKIE with the Courts!
60
I am waiting for Pedophilia to be OKIE DOKIE with the Courts & if you DARE to Stop a Pedophile from
RAPING your Son or Daughter, you would be put in Jail! MARK MY WORDS, THIS IS 100% COMING
VERY SOON!
p13
24-8-2015
14
The COWARDLY White Men in this Country are TOO SCARED to do anything about this! Where is the
KKK, Neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists, Skinheads, etc. to start KILLING these EVIL satanist who do this???
How about the Military & kop agencies who SWORE AN OATH to DEFEND America from the ENEMIES
within America???
If this ain't the END TIMES, I don't know what is! MAY YHVH COME QUICKLY!!!
10
Father to marry son, with courts blessing!

Father to marry son, with courts
blessing!
A Free Press For A Free People Since
1997
View on
www.wnd.com
Preview
by
Yahoo
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/father-to-marry-son-with-courts-blessing/
15
20
25
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/father-to-marry-son-with-courts-blessing/
QUEERLY BELOVED
'FATHER' TO MARRY 'SON,' WITH COURT'S BLESSING!
'We are ecstatic beyond belief'
Published: 1 day ago
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/father-to-marry-son-with-courtsblessing/#4e1mERSL04VJw1CR.99
Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak, one-time father and son

The Pandoras box of same-sex marriage has just released a new pairing unimaginable a few short years ago.
Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak, father and son, though not biologically, will soon be husband and
whatever, reports the Patch of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
30
The pair, both in their 70s, have been together for 50 years and registered in New York City as domestic
partners in 1994. But when they moved to Pennsylvania, they discovered their domestic partnership wasnt
recognized, and legalized same-sex marriage was nowhere on the horizon.
Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as
they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WNDs Email News Alerts!
35
Needing to take care of estate-planning issues, the pair pursued a novel legal approach. Novak adopted
MacArthur in 2000. The fact their parents were deceased removed any legal objection.
It was the only legal method we could use in Pennsylvania to give underpinning to our relationship,
MacArthur said.
40
When the United States District Court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvanias marriage laws prohibiting
same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2014, Novak and MacArthur wanted to tie the knot in marriage, but
their earlier legal gambit now became an obstacle. Pennsylvania law doesnt permit marriage between parents
and children.
No one has done more to warn America of what the lefts attack on families means than Phyllis Schlafly.
Now shes warning that the war is not over. Who Killed the American Family? (Autographed)
p14
24-8-2015
15
So, a week ago, the father and sons Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply
became two single men now allowed to marry.
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/03/wedding_rings.jpg
END QUOTE
Below the roles of a marriage couple was generally along male/female lines. I am lucky to
remember my mother as a home maker. While some women may no longer have a pride in this I
view having been bring up some of my small children as it having been an honour.
10
http://www.islandofwrittenwords.com/2013/06/gender-roles-in-late-1800s-and-early.html
QUOTE
Gender Roles in the Late 1800s and Early 1900s
My 2nd paper for American Lit. class this past semester.
15
20
25
30
Around the late 1800s and early 1900s, there were specific roles for men and women as dictated
by a male dominated society. Literature written about this time, especially those by women, told
stories which described certain traditional gender roles. Examples of such included Kate Chopin's
"The Story of an Hour" and The Awakening, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Yellow
Wallpaper" and "To the Indifferent Women." The traditional gender roles that these two authors
included in their stories and poem involved: women not working outside but men did, so men were
the moneymakers while women were homemakers and mainly responsible for the family and home,
but men did have some extent of responsibility inside the home as well. Women had more
expectations put on their shoulders so when it became too much, some women did want to break
free from the typical role of housewife and mother.
Primarily, women in society back in the late 1800s and early 1900s were not usually seen in the
workforce. They were expected to keep to the house and take care of their family and home. Some
women were even discouraged from any sort of work, even if it was done inside.
END QUOTE
I look forwards to your positive reply!

35
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p15
24-8-2015

20150824-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Same Sex Relationships and The Constitution

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

20150824-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Same Sex Relationships and The Constitution

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The document can be downloaded from:

LGBTQ classroom conversation starters

Recruiting children? You bet we are

Homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote

----- Original Message ----From: stevelloyd73@gmail.com

From: Bob Jones <twoseedlinemessage@yahoo.com>

Father to marry son, with courts blessing!

Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak, one-time father and son

I look forwards to your positive reply!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

S-ar putea să vă placă și