I would like to thank the Governor-General for making it abundantly clear that she is unfit for her role. She did it in grand style over the weekend, throwing her support behind two failed causes that those she governs have rejected demonstrably at the ballot box: the destruction of marriage and the destruction of our constitutional monarchy.
The Governor-General informed us via the ABC (no surprises there) that she hoped Australia might become a nation where people “are free to love and marry whom they choose”. Then she brazenly calculated that Prime Minister Abbott would not have the courage to sack her and backed the republican cause.
If Her Excellency the Honourable Quentin Bryce AC CVO had any honour at all, she would now hang her head in shame, apologise for politicising the most important office in the land and then resign.
I’m not sure what country Ms Bryce has been governing lately, but the one I live in allows people to love others unreservedly.
Anyone who is stupid enough to think otherwise is not fit to hold any public office. And as far as I can tell, the only person in Australia who actually believes that we are not free to love is the Governor-General. That is a problem, but the good news is that there 22.68 million (and counting) other Australians who are already eminently more qualified for the job than her.
Australians do not live under tyrannical legal constraints limiting their ability to love others. There are no hordes under threat of legal sanction simply because they care for someone else. Australian laws do not regulate love. There is no Australian ‘Love Police’. The whole concept is an absurdity that lives only in recesses of the Governor-General’s mind.
The other absurdity that cohabits the same vice-regal mental alcove is that there are laws limiting the rights of Australians to freely marry whom they choose.
Again, I’m not sure what parts of Australia Her Excellency has been hanging out in, but there is no evidence anywhere that Australian laws compel people to marry those whom they do not wish to wed, or those who they do not love.
On the contrary, Australian laws prevent compulsory, arranged marriages. That is why bearded old men who advocate Sharia law want them changed. They would prefer it if they could force nine year girls into lives of sexual bondage under the lusting care of their mates.
Australian laws regarding marriage are very clear. They apply to all uniformly. There is no class of people who have more rights to marriage above those of another class. The only exception is for children. They are the only citizens of this land who can truly claim that they do not have equal marriage rights.
And this is where the general stupidity of the media comes into play. They have portrayed the Governor-General’s radical statements as support for homosexual marriage, which, by definition, is not actually marriage at all. The term is an oxy-moron, so it is no surprise that the concept is supported by morons.
But that’s not what she said she supported. Not at all. The Governor-General’s comments clearly support so much more: a society in which I could marry my mother just because I love her.
The press have ignored this fact altogether.
But there is no getting around this truth. If the Governor-General really means what she said, if she really believes that Australians should be free to marry whomever they love, then she supports incest. And polygamy. And marriage between adults and children.
Because you cannot have the utopian nightmare the Governor-General dreams of with its free marriage for whomever is in love without accepting that incest, polygamy and sexual relationships between children and adults are acceptable.
But let’s face it, the Governor-General has hung her hat with the marriage equality crowd. And the leading proponents of marriage equality across the world want just that.
Take Peter Tatchell. He was born and bred Down-Under but now spends his time living it up as a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. You might remember that she recently gave Royal Assent to England’s new marriage equality laws which Peter has spent much of his life championing as an LGBT activist.
But Pete’s not finished yet. There’s still work to be done. That’s why he’s now come out of the closet and written that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 (actually, he’s been out of that closet for a long time now). His reasoning is that it will stop the criminalisation of youngsters who get up to a bit of mischief – even if it is with older men.
Aren’t we lucky to have homosexuals like Peter taking such as interest in protecting 14 year olds from the long arm of the law if they consent to being sodomised by older men?
And as he says, if no one complains, does it really matter?
It would appear from the Governor-General’s comments that she thinks the ideas about marriage, sex and love that Peter and his mates push are pretty good. I’m pretty sure most other Australians would politely beg to differ, just as they do regarding the republican movement.
The republic has been demonstrably and democratically rejected by the vast majority of Australians. A long time ago. And since then, support for the cause has fallen. For those reasons, and for the office she holds, the Governor-General is the last person in Australia that should be talking about it.
Apart from the general impression it gives that she lacks all respect for our institutions and government, the Governor-General is the one person in Australia who is supposed to be above politics. And when advocates for an Australian republic are so disrespectful of our current democratic conventions, one can only wonder what kind of republic they have in store.
It’s obviously not one in which democracy is respected. It seems more like one in which unelected officials get to tell the rest of us what we should think. Because that is exactly what Quentin Bryce has done.
And to make it worse, Ms Bryce has also demonstrated that under her republican values it is fine and dandy for the person holding the highest office in the land to use their position to assist the political fortunes of their nearest and dearest.
If you don’t like the idea of an hereditary head of state, having an unelected republican usurp their authority to pump up the political sails of her son-in-law doesn’t seem like a much better alternative.
But that is what has happened here in Australia.
Bill Shorten is the opposition leader. He’s also Ms Bryce’s son-in-law. And he supports homosexual marriage and an Australian republic. In fact, he’s the most prominent politician in this land to do so. It’s clear that the Governor-General has not only got all political on these issues, but that she is also skipping merrily down a path called opportunistic political nepotism.
If the Governor-General really wanted to avoid claims of bias, as was reported when she offered to resign after Bill was elected by hapless Labor members to become the dude who replaced Kevin Rudd, she would not have allowed herself to be branded a supporter of ‘marriage equality’ or the republic.
But she did, so it’s clear that the Governor-General is not really concerned about bias at all and is more interested in using her vice-regal role to play politics – politics that helps her son-in-law.
The only reason Ms Bryce has done this is because she believes that she can get away with it.
There is only one person with the power to decide if she can: Tony Abbott. Will he ensure respect for our institutions, or will he watch as they are eroded from the very top in order to support the political fortunes of the Labor Party and Bill Shorten. My bet is that he will choose the latter. Australia will be the weaker for it.