The new Senator on the block is the Liberal Democrats David Leyonhjelm.
He believes that he is a classical libertarian.
And with those words echoing in your mind, note that yesterday this ‘libertarian’ claimed that he was going to put forward yet another marriage ‘equality’ bill. The big difference between this one and the rest is that Senator Leyonhjelm has also made it clear that he is not asking for approval this time.
In fact, that’s exactly what he said when he addressed Australians from Parliament House: “We’re not asking for your approval…”
Senator Leyonhjelm is just expecting that his bill will be passed, regardless of what voters voted for the last time they all went down to the voting station and voted in a government.
In case you don’t remember, the party that did not get elected was the one campaigning for homosexual marriage. And the party that got the big thumbs up was the one that opposed this notion.
Furthermore, in the frenzied rush to replace pro-gay Labor with Liberal at the polling booth, it seems that a bunch of people accidentally voted for the wrong Liberals. No self-respecting political pundit believes that David Leyonhjelm would actually be a Senator except for the fact that the Liberal Democrats won the electoral lotto and secured top spot on the New South Wales Senate ballot. This fortune enabled him to gain a massive donkey vote from those confused between the ‘Liberal Democrats’ and the ‘Liberals and Nationals’, positioned 24 columns away at the other end of the ballot paper.
The arrogance of Senator Leyonhjelm is breathtaking. While claiming to be libertarian, he is demanding that Australians be ignored when it comes to marriage.
That doesn’t sound very free to me. Nor does it sound like ‘small’ government. Instead, it sounds like big intrusive government getting all involved in redefining morality so that it doesn’t exist at all.
And that’s exactly what Libertarianism is. It’s not about freedom at all, it’s about creating a state free from morality altogether. That’s usually known as chaos. And when chaos reigns supreme, only bad things happen.
The chaos has already shown itself clearly in the mind of Senator Leyonhjelm. He’s arguing that we should respect the privacy of homosexuals by making their affairs an issue of state.
He’s also gone on to say that it’s not the role of government to define relationships. He made that claim while simultaneously announcing his new bill to define all the different types of relationships that the government will and won’t recognise as marriages.
These are not coherent ideas. They are ideas that are inherently contradictory and illogical. It’s all part and parcel of the territory that goes with an idea as corrupted as homosexual marriage.
As such, it’s not surprising that the Senator behind these chaotic expressions does not really have much intellectual substance to him at all.
After making his announcement, Senator Leyonhjelm was interviewed by a gushing reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald.
You can see it here.
Just before the four minute mark of this interview, Senator Leyonhjelm claimed that homosexual marriage did not hurt other people.
The World Health Organisation has just strongly recommended that ‘men who have sex with other men’ should take antiretroviral medication every day. That’s a pretty strong admission that homosexual activity does hurt other people. And not just those involved. The rest of us have to cough up so that this medication is subsidised for those who live a dangerous lifestyle.
Immediately after this statement, the Senator went on to say that he would be taking the same approach to ‘lots of things’.
And then he was asked, like what?
Senator Leyonhjelm’s exhaustive list of ‘like whats’ included:
- assisted suicide,
- smoking marijuana,
- an umm,
- a claim that the list is endless,
- another umm,
- and finally, bicycle helmets.
What a list!
After this Senator Leyonhjelm went all preachy and questioned why the government should tell people how to look after their heads.
Using Senator Leyonhjlem’s logic, it’s also worth questioning why the government should tell homosexual men how to look after their health as well.
If we can throw out bicycle helmets, we can also throw out HIV education campaigns and subsidised medication.
I’m not sure, though, that Senator Leyonhjelm will consistently apply his logic.
After all, he’s the one claiming to be in favour of ‘small’ government while seeking to ‘deregulate’ marriage so that the bureaucracy reaches into more and more lives.
If he was really such a small government kind of guy, he wouldn’t be questioning why government didn’t recognise homosexual marriage. He’d be questioning why government recognises marriage at all, especially as he considers them to be private affairs.
And if marriage is not about children, and if they are private, as the pro-homosexual lobby claims, then there is simply no need for the government to register relationships at all. Full stop.
But marriage is about children. And marriage is public.
Responsible governments take an interest in recognising public commitments that lead to children because these relationships are the future of the state.
That is why governments recognise marriage and provide benefits to married couples: to assist them in their critically important task.
And it is also at this point that Senator Leyonhjelm and those who seek to redefine marriage have lost all understanding of reality. When a couple gets married and starts a family, they are undertaking something that transcends the power of any state. They can do something that no state can: create life. All by themselves. Just like that.
That is why their marriage exists regardless of whether some man in a building in Canberra posts a certificate in the mail. That is merely a secondary action that shows the state submits itself in recognition of a greater power.
But the power to create life is simply beyond the reach of homosexuals and so their relationships are inherently different. They are not the same as marriages and they all know it. That’s why homosexuals are desperately seeking any old external authority to define their relationship in a vain effort to ‘legitimise’ them. It is a fruitless task. States don’t make marriages. They only recognise those that exist. To even get to that point you need both man and woman.
Furthermore, no amount of test tubes and freezers and tweezers and needles and the wombs of ‘breeders’ and the contracts that go with them can give homosexuals this power. All they can do is provide a means by which the power of others is abused.
There is a phrase that describes these ungodly actions to create children that will be raised deliberately without their biological parents. Unfortunately, Senator Leyonhjelm used it yesterday to describe the true definition of marriage: misappropriation of power.
This just shows that libertarians can speak the big words but that they have little idea about what they actually mean.
Just like the word liberty itself. It means the freedom to do good without interference from evil. Senator Leyonhjelm thinks it means free to do whatever he pleases, regardless of the will of the people. That’s not liberty. It’s totalitarian.
And that’s why Senator Leyonhjelm is not asking for our approval.