When I say cartoonist Bill Leak’s cartoon about an Aboriginal police officer approaching an Aboriginal father about his delinquent son’s behaviour, and the father giving a delinquent response, I knew that many would find the cartoon offensive.

Although I am a free speech advocate, I do not believe that such comments are particularly helpful, merely getting a chuckle out of a terrible situation where there is genuine human misery. Such comments do not help, although peole should be free to make them. But, then, I am a Christian.

We know that the high court of Australia, has ruled that the definition of “marriage” in the Constitution is such that it embraces same-sex unions. This was done through using a “living” method of constitutional interpretation, saying that words should not be defined as the Founders used them, but as, well, modern progressives use them. This is a handy dandy way of making the Constitution mean anything that progressives want.

Perhaps you hope that the same sex marriage agenda may be defeated in the plebiscite, and will then go away? Think again!

The headline from Natural News.com, proclaims that a full-on race war is in motion in America.
Mike Adams does not mince words:
“it is now obvious that American society is breaking down into social chaos characterized by racially motivated black-on-white mob violence. As much as I have repeatedly called for peace and unity among all citizens to realize the TRUE enemy is a corrupt, criminal government, there are still sectors of society where so-called "Black Lives Matter" rioters have become de facto Black Power terrorists who are deliberately hunting down and targeting white people for beatdowns and murder.”

See: http://www.naturalnews.com/054977_Black_Lives_Matter_Milwaukee_violence_citizen_self_defense.html

One important thing seldom discussed in the issue of the same-sex marriage plebiscite is that it is not necessary at all to permit a change to the legal definition of marriage because our High Court has already decided that the term "marriage", "when used in section 51 (xxi),… is a term which includes a marriage of persons of the same sex". This conclusion was reached in the High Court's decision on the legality of the ACT's "Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013" on December 12, 2013: Commonwealth v  Australia Capital Territory (2013) HCA 55.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf

As is common in constitutional law today, there was no concern about the intent of the original framers of the Australian Constitution and a progressive interpretation was adopted without any concern at all for the connection of the law to the Christian and Western tradition. Seeing the Constitution as a "living force" allows the High Court to adopt "progressive" and leftist positions on social and policy issues.

In regard to Section 18 C: I quote from a letter to the Editor (The Australian, August 2, 2016, p.13), by Geoffrey Luck:

"Australia now risks descending into a state of two nations. The attacks which destroyed Brian Martin's ability to conduct the NT Royal Commission and the Pearson and Shorten demands for a treaty linked to the constitutional referendum represent a declaration of Aboriginal war on the tradition of a unitary Australia".