Endorse it, or else

Remember when gay marriage was all about liberty and equality? It seems like a long time ago indeed:

One of Australia’s leading wedding magazines, White, is shutting down following its refusal to feature same-sex weddings.

Founders Luke and Carla Burrell, who are Christian, say the magazine became the target of a damaging campaign after Australia voted to legalise same-sex marriage last year, and a number of advertisers withdrew their support.

Earlier this year, hundreds of wedding industry professionals boycotted the magazine over its lack of LGBTQI diversity.

I suppose there’s no government involvement so it’s just people voting with their wallets, as is their right. It’s all a bit puritan, though:

The couple said they did not want to “create a social, political or legal war” that would only divide people and do “more damage than good”.

But they said they received a “flood of judgement” and were not given enough time or space to work through their thoughts and feelings.

“It’s a long and continuing journey, it’s not black and white, there are so many grey areas that need to be explored.”

Gay marriage has gone from a fringe issue which no mainstream politician would risk their neck to endorse to one where businesses are being closed down because their owners don’t agree with it, all in the space of a decade.

Former contributors told Hack in August they did not want to force the magazine to publish same-sex weddings, but only to make their views clear.

And if those views differed from yours, you’d boycott them. I have a feeling that, when the battle lines really start to get drawn up and serious civil unrest beckons, a lot of people will consider the issue of gay marriage when choosing sides. The way it’s been brought in, and subsequently used as a political tool, seems to have hacked off a lot of people who aren’t saying much, but the murmurings are there.


23 thoughts on “Endorse it, or else

  1. Given the significant sums that dual-income no-kids gays like to spend on weddings, the advertisers had little choice but to withdraw.

    One positive aspect of gay weddings is that they’re undermining the value of ostentatious weddings. Perhaps ordinary couples can go back to the basics like spending $20k on their future lives together (and their progeny), rather than on a single day’s dinner & dancing for all their distant relatives.

  2. Gay marriage is just another weapon in the arsenal of those who wish to destroy everything before we arrive in their brave new world, I hate being forced to take sides but it seems that’s the way the left wants it….it will end in tears etc.

  3. Gay marriage may have only been a discussion point in the last decade but gay activism has been fighting very hard and gaining massive territory for over a generation now.

    And whilst I am at it, why does the majority of Grand Designs …….. insert country name, feature gay couples gaffs these days?

    From a percentage representative point of view it appears that hetro couple grand designs aint cool any more.

  4. Why does it even need to be a Christian issue? Maybe they just don’t regard gay weddings as their niche..

    I noticed in the article that everyone insisted that they reveal their values. Why is this anyone’s business? These are denunciations for not praising Stalin enough, plain and simple. Your belief systems must be public now.

  5. ‘… so it’s just people voting with their wallets, as is their right. It’s all a bit puritan, though:‘

    More like prejudice, collusion and bullying. The very things minority groups cry about when directed at them but warmly embrace and are quick to employ against others.

    Those withdrawing ads have possibly been or fear being bullied.

  6. I suppose there’s no government involvement so it’s just people voting with their wallets, as is their right.

    Two problems with this line of thinking.

    One: while there may not be direct gov’t involvement, it’s still all very much gov’t-approved. I doubt this boycott would go so far if the boycotters weren’t in ideological lockstep with the powers that be. (In fact, isn’t that how the tin-pot dictators in third world banana republics run things – get unofficial mobs to do your dictating for you, so you’ve got plausible deniability?)

    Two: your ability to vote with your wallet is constrained by the gov’t, such that only the right people are able to make their views heard. If a Christian organisation embarked on a similar campaign, they’d probably get done for harassment.

  7. The Christian angle is interesting. My wife is an Anglican priest, and recently we spent two years living in a theological college among the C of E’s “brightest and best”. A ban on gay sex remains in force in the C of E, of course, along with actual marriage between people of the same sex. But open gay relationships and civil partnerships are actively celebrated. Gay couples are given one-bedroom flats upon tying the civil knot, and to raise an eyebrow would mean ostracism and claims of bigotry. Gay banter is tolerated, whereas saying the same things about heterosexual predation or lovemaking would again mark one out as a dinosaur. In the C of E, one can say almost anything about God or Jesus from the pulpit or in print, yet priests seem to be terrified of letting slip something that could be construed as homophobia.

  8. Sam Vara, that’s really interesting. I guess the days of fire and brimstone preaching are long gone. Not that I ever heard any in a C of E church.

    I grew up in the Baptist Church and if there’s one thing they are really good at, it is shooting their wounded: Ostracism before Repentance. Nowadays it seems no one dare even upset the “sinners”.

  9. Long time lurker. Hi Tim. Thanks for the food for thought you provide.
    If you read sci-fi, I strongly recommend Neal Asher’s Owner series (starts with The Departure). It’s a sort of nightmare scenario of where all the left wing nuts will eventually take us.

  10. Henry Crun:

    Yes, fire & brimstone would definitely trigger the snowflakes, and an organisation with massively declining numbers can’t afford to alienate any potential members. There seem to be three vague groupings within the C of E. The evangelicals are definitely anti-gay, but tend – in social situations at least – to keep quiet about it, because they are relentlessly looking for converts. The Anglo-Catholics have always had a very large contingent of camp closet gays who like dressing up and flirting with the idea of repressed desire. (Interestingly, the camp element is seen far less often in “real” , i.e. Roman, Catholicism, where a man can dress in a lacy cotta and still be dignified and masculine. But to be around Anglo-Catholics is often to think one had wandered into the Frankie Howard theme night in a provincial student union in the 1970s.) Finally, the liberals. They set the tone, and are basically Guardianistas. Gay marriage, trans rights, patriarchy, ecology, disability, etc., etc., and if you don’t actively celebrate all this, then you are marked as a bigot.

  11. Sam Vara
    There was an interesting survey a few years ago which showed that c.75% of the C of E’s laity were right of centre and thought that welfare dependence was a bigger problem than poverty, while c.75% of the clergy were left of centre and thought poverty was a bigger problem than welfare dependence. And the Bishops wonder why attendance continues to fall (except at Cathedrals).

  12. I am opposed to gay marriage, but not to civil partnerships for gays. I also know gays who agree with me on this. Here, in rural England, I know two gay couples in civil partnerships. Both couples consist of normal men who have normal jobs and who wear normal clothes. One couple said to me that they wouldn’t get married because they are social conservatives. And they don’t like the gay scene because it is dominated by “exhibitionists and leftists”.

  13. I’m not sure if God exists but I am increasingly certain the Devil does:
    Tranny thread on /pol/ archive. I’ll warn that some of the content is not only NSFW, it’s not safe for lunch or sanity either.
    This s**t has to stop. It really has to stop.
    We are not the extremists here.

  14. I’m old enough to remember that marriage was an oppressive heteronormative institution, and that no self-respecting “queer” (the “woke” terminology of the day, before that term had even been invented) would ever want to submit themselves to it. Indeed,it was offensive to even suggest that they ever would.

    Also, that “all we want is to be tolerated, nobody is ever going to try to force you to approve”.

    And that “slippery slope arguments are a fallacy”.

    Salad days they were indeed…

  15. Bardon: Only Queers can design living spaces these days donchaknow? That meme will die eventually when people get sick & fed up of living in a peacock environment.

    As for gay marriage the govt really messed up by not doing civil partnership properly. All ‘marriages’ should be a civil contract with whatever religious or weirder decoration the couple want on top. The problem in UK is the legal position of the Anglican church as the Established church. That ought to change but no government will grasp that nettle!

  16. Yes, all we have to do is ‘grasp the nettle’ of disestablishing the CofE, civil partnerships are the answer, and then all will be for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.
    Some headlines from this the best of all possible worlds:
    (AU) ‘Child aged FOUR becomes the youngest in Australia to do a gender swap.’ Daily Mail, 2 Sep 2016.
    (NZ) ‘School installs toilet for transgender pupil, aged 6.’ New Zealand Herald, 15 May 2016.
    (UK) ‘Family where mum is daddy, dad is mummy and son, 4, is being raised as gender neutral.’ Daily Mirror, 26 Aug 2017.
    (UK) ‘Primary school pupils will learn about gay relationships, mental health and exercise under new government guidelines.’ Daily Mail, 19 Jul 2018.
    (US) ‘Mum of ‘gender non-conforming’ child sells fake ‘extra-small’ penises for transgender kids aged under five.’ Daily Mirror, 28 Dec 2017.

    Tell me that demons do not walk amongst us.

  17. “serious civil unrest..” S’rsly, Tim and other posters.

    So many would be prepared to die in a ditch for or against?

    How quaint!

  18. civil partnerships are the answer

    What’s the question? “How can we force the taxpayer to subsidize voluntary sexual relations between other people just because those people claim to love one another?”.

    Marriage exists because fatherhood is not a naturally obvious thing (unlike motherhood, which comes with some fairly unmistakable clues). By giving men equal parental status with women (via regulation of female sexuality) marriage gives men a vested emotional interest in the future of their own communities. A few million man-years of that investment results in civilization, which is why marriage has been so successful as an institution.

    What’s the social advantage to rewarding homosexuals for living together and having sex? Even lesbians who get knocked up are not going to be any more of a benefit to society at large than any other single moms with roommates, and their kids are just as likely to be screwed up as those poor bastards raised by un-wed mothers.

    So no, no “civil partnerships”. Not worth it. Let ’em live as roommates if they want, but nothing about their relationships deserves legal recognition or support, any more than any other friends-with-benefits relationship does.

  19. I was being sarky with that remark, jabrwok. Restore the former prohibition—which was only ever lightly enforced anyway. Note that Oscar Wilde’s prosecution for his homosexuality resulted from his making a mockery of British justice by initiating a libel suit based on the lie that he was not homosexual; when his deception was publicly exposed in court, the Law had little choice but to prosecute. If Wilde had emulated Wellington—who, threatened with the publication of tales about him and a mistress, dismissed the cur with ‘Publish and be damned’—then he likely would never have been prosecuted.

    Noël Coward’s homosexuality was also an open secret (in his social circles at least)—even Winston knew (the most he did was put the kibosh on a knighthood for which Noël was being considered). But there was no attempt from any quarter to prosecute Noël. He was not challenging or outraging Society in any way; and his private life was exactly that—private.

    Interestingly, US Army and Pacific War veteran James Jones in his famous From Here To Eternity and The Thin Red Line includes in passing some homosexual characters and incidents, suggesting that even the US Army of 1939–44 (James Jones’ years of service) displayed a fair level of tolerance, on the level of, If they’re discrete and it doesn’t cause a problem, it ain’t a problem.

    Washington Post journalist Megan McArdle, then writing under the pseudonym of Jane Galt, once wrote a very good essay: ‘A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other’. Despite its ostensible subject, it is a solid defence of conservative principles, quoting Chesterton’s parable of The Fence, and explores other subjects such as Welfare, and notes the behavioural changes caused by various well-meaning measures (help a deserving hard luck case encourages a slightly less deserving case to behave carelessly, which then encourages an even less deserving case… and here we are: Sodom and Gomorrah).

  20. Yes, fire & brimstone would definitely trigger the snowflakes, and an organisation with massively declining numbers can’t afford to alienate any potential members.

    Of course, a reluctance to trigger the snowflakes is precisely why the organisation has massively declining numbers.

    I expect they know it, too. But it’s just more important to them to retain the approval of their sophisticated friends – which shows how seriously they take their religion, and, in turn, how seriously we should be taking them.

  21. ScotchedEarth: It’s a bit of a leap from disestablishing the church to rampant child transgenderism. We can all pick weird outliers, as you have just done, to bolster an argument, but they are just that.

    I personally don’t see any problem in letting same-sex couples have a contractual relationship on the same basis as heterosexual couples, as that is what marriage is these days for many (most?). Some will definitely want to associate it with, in their own minds, some higher purpose, and add to the ceremony as necessary. I have no problem with that either. However the transgender crap you referenced is a red herring in this debate.

  22. It’s not ‘weird outliers’ but government policy aimed at primary school children, as the headlines I referenced show.
    Here’s another: ‘Some are confused, others are trapped in the wrong body’: Astonishing 50 kids a week referred to sex change clinics. Daily Mirror, 22 Oct 2017:

    The number of children visiting Britain’s specialist clinic the Gender Identity Development Service, hosted by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London, has risen by 24% to 1,302 in the past six months. Among them were two children aged four, four five-year-olds and 17 kids of six.

    Nothing more than State-sponsored child abuse.
    But it’s the future you chose. We warned you but you preferred to sacrifice your country, race and children to your virtue-signalling Moloch.

  23. President Elect Bolsanaro of Brazil may signal the arrival of Peak Pink.

    Not only do the fed up Brazilians hope that he “Makes Brazil Great Again” he has promised to purge Brazil of Marxism and ban the spread of homosexual propaganda to Brazilian school children via its UNESCO programs. There is talk that he has a longer term plan of annulling homosexual marriages, no wonder Stephen Fry is terrified of him.


    Education Is in the Crosshairs in Bolsonaro’s Brazil

    The president-elect seeks to ban from the classroom political opinions, debates, and any issues that could be construed as leftist.


Comments are closed.