Dear Reader,
This is interesting and shows you should never give up on your letter writing.
The following was sent to the Shepparton News on the 14th August 2017 and published today (13th September 2017) on the eve of the ‘postal ballot’.

To hear our Representatives trying to justify support for this issue whilst other important issues hurting their constituents are of little moment for them as they bicker and squabble among themselves worse than little children.
It is ‘adversarial politics’  at its worst as they try and confuse voters in their grab for Power. It is a very good reason to place the ‘sitting Member’ last next time you are required to vote.
In the meantime, voting negative in the plebiscite might keep the nasty wolf at bay a little longer.
Now it is up to you!

We received the following email today:

    Launched today in the wake of the High Court decision, TransgenderMarriageVote.com.au explains why there is a mismatch between the postal survey question and the bills put forward in parliament. 

     In Europe, to protect the ethnics at the expense of native European populations, severe restrictions on free speech are imposed. While jihadists essentially are free to advocate what they desire, such as rape and genocide rhetoric, for Whites,  even “racist” memes now can land them in jail on terrorism charges, along with having copies of a book freely purchasable on amazon.com, according to this article: https://altright.com/2017/09/12/prisoners-of-conscience/.

     Believe it or not, there are gays who oppose same sex marriage:
http://australianmarriage.org/silent-majority-silent-no/
https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-n7lKwTySc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA
http://australianmarriage.org/bait-switch-really-voting/

    The same sex vote has been pushed as merely doing the right thing for “equality,” just as the Aboriginal referendum is so pushed. But, there are less than hidden consequences, as the article above notes:

“This Marriage Bill seeks to enshrine Gender Theory into the Marriage Act. You may think there are two genders but actually, there are around 112.
Here are a few (list available at Tumblr):

     Here is just a sample of how the Left intends to fight the same sex marriage issue: with intimidation and personal threats: The Australian, September 4, 2017, p. 1.

     An Asian female GP appeared in the first TV advertisement for the No campaign. The response: the radical Left now have a petition to have her deregistered! It is exactly the same tactic now being used against Alt Right folk in the US.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Alan Baker has touched on the most essential aspect of the marriage debate (8/9): ‘the importance of children being raised, wherever possible, by their biological mother and father.’ Every Australian who has had the good fortune to be so raised should think carefully about how a ‘yes’ vote might militate against this. It might also facilitate future legal action on the grounds of ‘discrimination’ against anyone expressing this view. Would that really be in the interests of society and the nation?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Your editorial (‘The survey’s on, so vote “yes” for justice’, 8/9) fails to consider the other parties whose interests are at stake in this plebiscite. Foremost among them are children. I am so grateful that I was raised in a family with a father and a mother, and I urge all Australians who have enjoyed similar good fortune to ask themselves whether they would really be happy to have been brought up instead by two men or two women?
As for Bill Shorten’s promise that the ALP, if elected to government, will ignore any ‘no’ victory, that suggests a bullying and fanatical attitude and tramples on democratic principle.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The marriage debate is getting ugly, as Bill Shorten and others predicted it would, but the ugliness seems to be largely coming from fanatical ‘yes’ advocates. Vilification of defenders of traditional marriage appears to be widespread and intense (‘Pastors threatened after false claim’, 31/8) and corporate and professional bodies are misusing their status to the detriment of dissenting members (‘Law dean demands retreat on Yes vote’, 31/8).
     The unattractive nature of ‘Mardi Gras’ marches in recent years was a forewarning of this sort of behaviour. One is reminded of ancient advice about keeping evil genies bottled up and not opening Pandora’s boxes. The biblical saying ‘by their fruit shall ye know them’ is also relevant. If the plebiscite goes ahead, let us hope there will be sufficient Australians who see that ‘same sex marriage’ is a bridge too far.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Catholic clergy who are defending traditional marriage are not, as Michelle Goldsmith implies (31/8), thereby making ‘unhelpfully inhumane pronouncements’. They are seeking to protect children, to safeguard society and to preserve a fundamental institution that has stood the test of time. Dianne Young is also mistaken (31/8) in applying the term ‘dresses’ to robes worn in many cultures around the world. In our culture ‘dresses’ at once connotes attire worn by girls and women.
     One senses that defenders of same-sex marriage are becoming a little desperate when such silly remarks are offered. The aggressive hysteria emanating from other ‘yes’ partisans strengthens this suspicion and is in line with the worrying ugliness of ‘Mardi Gras’ parades held in recent years. Tradition tells that evil genies are best kept in bottles and that Pandora’s boxes should not be opened. This may well apply to the marriage debate.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     I have nothing against transgender people – some of my best friends are transgender. It means having blue hair, doesn’t it? There are lots of such ladies in the nursing home I visit, where I get to talk to them, and eat their scrap sandwiches, or is that sandwich scraps? Or, just scraps? I hope that I have got my facts right and are not making a fool of myself. But, then, using comas with precision, how would that be even possible?

     Well, some transgender folk in America have hearts that are not filled with the warmth and love for all humanity that I have:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rleFAS_B04 
    Consider transgender reality TV star Caitlyn Jenner, who, I was utterly amazed to learn, supports President Donald Trump. See, she is a good person, and all those internet jokes are just sick. Anyway, she said that Trump was “very much behind the LGBT community.” Truly amazing.

     We all know, as conservatives that a successful “Yes” vote in the coming plebiscite will involve as yet unknown erosions of freedoms, especially religious freedoms: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/yes-side-in-marriage-debate-ignores-the-implications-for-freedoms/news-story/b119dbc7f7cad9f773f7f8ac7eef926d.

     Once same sex marriage is in, a fanatical politically correct Labor will push things to the next level, with a LGBTI taxpayer funded watch dog, like the present system for racial thought control, which will view any debate as hate speech. Laws will be changed to make race hate encompass LGBTI issues. Then, they will move to the next level, and the level after that, and on and on, until traditionalists are crushed under the boot. It reminds me of the scene from the old Spider-Man 1 movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAfxBXAQCZM.

to THE AGE
     Current attacks on the celebration of Australia Day are too often misleading. Gregory Smithers (‘January 26 has long been a political catalyst’, 24/8) focuses on ‘white privilege’ but neglects to consider white achievement in our history. Ordinary Aussies are not superficial, as he suggests they are, to see the attacks as destructive of ‘the myths and symbols that give meaning to collective national identity.’ And the ‘changing of political power’ in the nation is a matter of deep concern for lovers of traditional Australia. It smacks of incipient totalitarianism.
     As for John Armstrong’s generalizing reference (Letters, 24/8) to ‘white settlers’ seeing Aboriginals as ‘part of the fauna’, it is a grossly unjust insult for which no adequate evidence exists at all.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Coalition MPs such as George Brandis and Christopher Pyne, who are claiming (‘Religious rights threat in state laws’, 24/8) that the coming postal vote is about nothing else than ‘allowing gay couples to wed’, are doing further damage to their party by such an inaccurate, head-in-the-sand approach.
     Sufficient evidence has now come to light, both from overseas experience and analyses of Australian laws, to show that a ‘yes’ vote will lead to a serious diminution of religious freedom in the nation, unless very great care is taken beforehand to adjust and introduce legal protections for adherents of religions and other persons motivated by conscience.
     If the High Court allows the postal vote to proceed, there should be an immediate bipartisan declaration by the PM and Leader of the Opposition that, whatever the result, no change to our marriage law will be legislated until satisfactory protections are in place.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Alison Davies (28/8) wants to see same-sex marriage regarded as ‘normal’. Does she mean ‘average’ (the norm being the mean) or ‘right, true’? Only the latter could be applicable. Australia needs to get the answer right on this. Maggie Morgan (28/8) confuses equality before the law with ‘marriage equality’ and then claims that the plebiscite ‘is about equality and basic human rights.’ This doesn’t answer the concerns ‘no’ advocates have expressed about the interests of children and the interests of society. The plebiscite is actually about whether or not these interests trump those of same-sex attracted people. Maybe they do and sacred tradition is wise to insist that marriage should be viewed as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children securely to the ultimate benefit of society as a whole.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Ref: http://www.truemarriageequality.com/blog/there-is-nothing-homophobic-about-supporting-traditional-marriage-john-howard-former-australian-prime-minister

     Please do not be intimidated or cowed into thinking you cannot speak up for traditional marriage and for family and for children. You can and you should. There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking up in the face of this attack on our society's foundations.

     The “indigenous recognition campaign ditched” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/indigenous-recognise-campaign-ditched/news-story/b444305a94a3acccc26f1cb96a1223000, headline, refers to the abandonment of the Recognise Campaign, which gobbled up tens of millions of our taxpayer’s dollars over the last five years. This is a specific campaign, distinct from the entire referendum issue.

     Therefore, do not mistake this piece of news for any end of the Aboriginal constitutional recognition threat. Aboriginalists and the politically correct establishment have abandoned any “minimalist” proposal, and have showed their true colours, by now advocating substantial constitutional reform, with a referendum probably being held in May 2018. The main issue will be to add an indigenous voice to parliament, which I see as being to implant a new Aboriginal overlord committee to rule over Australia. As every law impacts on Aboriginals, there will be an influence over all Australian laws, and the culture of subservience set up. The sovereignty of parliament will be lost, and that is the clear agenda.

     One of the neglected aspects of immigration and multiculturalism is the problem of enclaves, the creation of nations within nations, which was raised in the 1980s, but is not heard much nowadays. However, there is an informative article by Bernard Salt about “non-English-speaking clusters” in our capital cities:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-curious-nature-of-nonenglish-speaking-clusters-in-our-cities/news-story/4eaf844601ae657450e40c9c942b4473

“Last year’s census figures confirm our extraordinarily diverse cultural and linguistic composition. About 18 million out of 24 million speak English. About three million were born overseas but are English proficient, including about 1.5 million British and Kiwi immigrants. However, there are 820,000 Australian residents who described their English proficiency as poor and a further 193,000 who are about as proficient in English as I am in Mandarin.
Indeed, the number of residents who say they do not speak English is up from 118,000 a decade ago, which suggests that this cohort is growing by an average of 7000 people a year. If Australia is to remain one of the most welcoming and inclusive immigrant nations on earth then we also need to develop our language skills. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that all migrants must immediately learn English. I think that given the basis of modern Australian prosperity it is entirely appropriate for Mandarin to be taught universally in schools. I learned French in secondary school in the 1970s; today’s kids should be learning the language of our single most important trading partner.
Across the country 16 per cent of the population does not speak English at all or well, but in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide this proportion is closer to 18 per cent. And in parts of each of these cities there are well-defined non-English-speaking enclaves including the northern suburbs of Adelaide centred on Salisbury, the southwestern suburbs of Sydney between Lakemba and Cabramatta, and in Melbourne’s west around Sunshine and southeast around Dandenong. Brisbane’s southside centred on Logan and Sunnybank is also a non-English-speaking hotspot.”

     Are conservatives and Christian – I know that there are still some out there – taking the same sex marriage vote seriously, seeing it as the existential threat, which it is? By that I mean exactly what Paul Kelly has said (The Weekend Australian, August 12-13, 2017, p. 15), namely that a “Yes” vote is likely to be returned, and religious freedom “will have a second and far more important consequence — an assault on religious freedoms made possible by inadequate laws that will see a major shift in Australian society.”

     These avenues include: “intimidation against individuals, schools, charities, businesses, adoption agencies and civic organisations. This includes consumer boycotts promoted by social media and even commercial boycotts against other commercial entities.” Those supporting traditional marriage will be treated just like immigration critics are now.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Graham Richardson says that ‘gay marriage is an idea whose time has come’ (‘Expensive opinion poll lets PM ditch principles’, 14/8). This remark is of the same quality as claims that the monarchy is ‘out of date’. It is vivid but has no validity.
     Observation of the current controversy suggests that the nation is not ready yet to make a final decision on whether or not to adjust the legal definition of marriage. Whatever the result of the postal vote, it should be used as another tool to get an end result that takes note of the welfare of all Australians present and future and not just of gay people. The best possible compromise is yet to be articulated.
     The whole debate has many ramifications and supporters of a ‘yes’ vote should not try to ungenerously stampede other Australians into premature acquiescence.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     In the current marriage debate, it ought to be widely admitted that more than the welfare of gay people is at stake. Also to be fairly considered are the welfare of children (in a number of contexts), the welfare of adherents of Christianity and other religious traditions and the welfare of the whole nation. Issues of freedom of speech and religion are intimately tied up in the controversy.
     In recent correspondence to ‘The Age’ there have been too many over-simplistic remarks, including ‘smart jests’, at the expense of supporters of the ‘No’ case. My feeling is that the nation is muddled and divided on this issue. More thought needs to be given to how best the needs of all parties can be met in the best possible compromise for us all. Thus a provisional ‘no’ in the postal vote remains the wisest option.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic