A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia.

OK everyone. We are doing it! Lets make some submissions!

I have just sent mine and as I said in my earlier post I would encourage you to do the same. The deadline for submissions is April 2.

Individual submissions always carry more weight than a signature on a petition. i know it might be daunting but…give it a try… here is how.


Easiest way is to go to the page that Australian Marriage Equality have set up to help people make an online submission.


if you want to apply through the normal Senate Online Submission Page go to…


Look for “Submitting for the First Time?” and click on “Enter your Details”

Then follow the instructions provided.  When the list of Bills comes up click on Marraige Amendment Bill 2010.

As you complete the submission you can apply to have your name withheld from the publication of submissions.

your submission could start…


Committee Secretary

Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee

Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Today’s Date

RE: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

Dear Committee Members.

Write a few sentences stating that you are in favour of the Bill and why. Then you can conclude with this…

I thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Sincerely Yours

Your Name.

Submissions dont have to be any particular length. I’m sure that the committee would appreciate short pithy submissions

…get in…say it…get out…commando style!

 Here is the wording of the Bill itself for those who are interested.


Here are the first 46 submissions that the Senate committe have recieved and recently published.Read these to see what other people have said.


Some of the other submissions included the following statements. I post them here to show that you obviously dont have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to make a submission to the government. …

WP Gadsby wrote…

“If I love my dog, and she loves me, why should we not marry? Because she’s a bitch? That is no answer, because ‘speciesism’ is also discriminatory — against me, and against my dog. It denies us the ‘right’ to express our love in a married relationship.

“Furthermore, why limit marriage to a partnership between two people …? Is that not also ‘discriminatory’? Why not authorise polyamory, with multiple partners in all kinds of mixes? On what moral basis should such groups be denied the opportunity to marry?

“And why limit all this to adults? … Should not children also have the right to marry? Should we legitimise paedophilia? And if not, why not?”

Classic stuff….Warwick Poole wrote…

“Homosexual marriage is and should never be aspired to,” Poole wrote. “It is a lustful exercise designed for self-gratification, which if the condom breaks, could be deadly.

“The portrayal of the sweet, kind, humorous, monogamous homosexual couple on television is a lie.

“Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but we do not tolerate some activities; why don’t we allow copulation, masturbation, urination, defecation in public? The list of unacceptable behaviours is endless. We simply do not tolerate some behaviours, and homosexual marriage is one that we should not tolerate.”

Or, consider the irrefutable logic of Alan Weatherall…

“Should we consider changing the definition of other words just because some don’t like the established definition?”

“Some might not like the definition of ‘thief’. This definition when applied causes all sorts of problems for the people identified as a thief. They are discriminated against in our society, they can’t get the employment they seek, they can’t get a loan and they have their details recorded and used against them should they be a suspect again.”

Thank goodness these guardians of society are out there…ever vigilant…protecting us from all these evils.