Marching to a gay beat

I don’t think any readers of this website will be surprised to know that Australian Marriage Equality thinks that the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a great place to promote its political agenda.

That’s probably because the Mardi Gras’ constitution states that political activity, training and development are part of the organisation’s objects.

Good for them.

Obviously, anyone who doesn’t agree with this agenda is a bigot, according to the ‘vibe’ and, no doubt, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. And if that is the definition of a bigot, then count me in. I think that everything Australian Marriage Equality stands for stinks.

Anyway, this is what Australian Marriage Equality has to say about the Mardi Gras:

“This year the Australian Marriage Equality float is about the communities across Australia who are joining Team Equal.  In 2015, Australian Marriage Equality is undertaking our most ambitious nationwide campaign ever. We have identified the federal politicians we need to win over and we will be travelling to 25 electorates to work with their communities as part of the 2015 Team Equal local campaigns.

The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a great opportunity to demonstrate your support for marriage equality to the entire city, country, and world. Our floats continue to attract major attention from media, the community and politicians.

The theme this year will allow you to represent your town, city or community and send a strong message to politicians that Australian communities want marriage equality in 2015.”

It all sounds very political to me.

And marching along with Australian Marriage Equality in the same parade will be the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Australian Army, Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM. Presumably, like everyone else in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, he will be demonstrating his support for marriage equality to the entire city, country, world and possibly even to the outer regions of the solar system.

I guess that also means Dave Ashley will be part of ‘Team Equal’, where everyone’s individuality has been replaced with a rainbow, peer group pressure and totalitarian conformity. If you’re a member of Team Equal, you can do whatever you like as long as it’s not normal.

I’m proudly not part of ‘Team Equal’. I am part of Team Married: that means I live with my wife and our children who were not built in a test tube and who don’t have biological parents living somewhere else. No homosexual relationship will ever be equal to that.

But back to Dave. Part of his job is to ensure that discipline and standards within the Australian Army are maintained. It’s a particularly important job, one would think, given that the military is constantly embarrassed by media reports of misbehaving soldiers.

And this is where it gets interesting.

On 7 March 2015, Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM, is going to break a lawful general order. The penalty for this act of military disobedience includes up to 12 months imprisonment.

The order that the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Australian Army will violate applies to every soldier and officer in the Australian Defence Force and is found in Defence Instruction (General) 21-1 Political activities of Defence Personnel.

This document states in paragraph 28b.(2) the following:

Defence members must not, in any activity of a political nature, wear their uniform.

That is black and white. It’s cut and dried. There’s no room to move. And in any other circumstances a soldier who broke this order would be done and dusted. However, in the interests of ensuring that LGBT soldiers and their ‘allies’ aren’t singled out, they are singled out and exempted from all requirements of military obedience.

Except that there is no legal power to exempt soldiers from anything based on their sexual preferences, or orientation or whatever it’s called in February 2015. In fact, laws prohibiting discrimination on these grounds are in place precisely to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen.

So the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Australian Army is not exempt from anything and instead he is going to deliberately break this order. If I was still serving, I’d politely ask what other orders he intends to break.

Now, I may be wrong, but I don’t think a Regimental Sergeant Major can do his job of maintaining standards and discipline if he is giving the impression to the other soldiers that orders can be ignored at whim and fancy.

But that is exactly what Dave Ashley is doing.

ArmyMG-4-350x249Defence members are prohibited from wearing their uniform to political events, but LGBT members have marched at the Mardi Gras with groups like Australian Marriage Equality since 2013.

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, once famously said that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Now, I may also be wrong on this point as well, but I imagine that the Chief of Army walks past the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army on a fairly frequent basis. Just saying, you know.

Of course, all of this is made worse by the fact that the Australian Army is charged with defending Australia. This includes its laws. This includes its law on marriage. Like it or lump it, when Australian soldiers are training to defend this country, part of what they are training to defend is the definition that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

It is scandalous that the military is interfering in the democratic conventions in this manner to undermine extant laws. It has no business supporting a blatantly political rally that promotes ideas that Australians have rejected over and again at the ballot box.

Furthermore, groups like Australian Marriage Equality would cry foul if the Australian Army was marching in an event that promoted the political agenda of pro-marriage organisations.

I guess that just makes groups like Australian Marriage Equality an organisation of hypocrites. That, and the fact that they like to promote homosexual marriage by advertising people who have already decided that marriage is meaningless anyway. I always find it laughable that a divorced person thinks that they can speak with any credibility on the importance of ‘homosexual marriage’. Australian Marriage Equality thinks it adds weight to their case.

Presumably, the Chief of Army and Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army think they can get around the fact that lawful general orders prohibit uniformed personnel from attending the Mardi Gras by claiming that they are only there to support the LGBT culture celebrated at this sordid parade. Hence this grammar-diverse line from the DEFGLIS website:

“Defence’s visible presence at this national cultural event provides an opportunity for serving members to demonstrate to the LGBTI community, their deep pride and loyalty to their Service as well as signifying Defence’s commitment to an inclusive and respectful workplace.”

By the way, DEFGLIS is not a Defence organisation. It is a private lobby group that campaigns for homosexual marriage and the removal of rights and funding from Christian organisations. Despite this, it receives Defence support and has been allowed to give orders to Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen at previous Mardi Gras parades, and it is organising the 2015 Defence contingent as well.

But appealing to culture will not help the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Australian Army, or his marching buddies, who just happen to be filling in the equivalent jobs in the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force.

In fact, this is a murky little area that can only lead to disgrace for all involved.

For instance, the Sydney Leather Pride Association is planning to stroll down Oxford Street again this year, with its members probably clothed much as they were last year. Which is to say, not wearing much at all.

When the Australian Army marches in the Mardi Gras with this group, it is marching with an organisation that had no qualms about displaying on its webpage the colour ‘codes’ one should wear if they are interested in engaging in pederasty and bestialia, both of which are criminal offences. That information is gone now, thanks to the public shaming given to the Sydney Leather Pride Association by this webpage last year. But there was no apology and no admittance that what it did was wrong. And the organisers of the Mardi Gras, as far as I can tell, have not asked any questions about it.

The New South Wales police did send me an email though, stating that they monitor groups like the Sydney Leather Pride Association on a daily basis due to the concerning nature of the sexual activities that they promote. What an endorsement.

So this is really not the type of culture that the Australian Defence Force should be supporting so publicly. It’s dangerous and embarrassing for those who have worn the nation’s uniform so proudly on operations.

There’s also the fact that a Defence report found in April 2013 that the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras vilified Jesus Christ. But that’s not all. It even went on to state that soldiers would be severely dealt with if they attended an event in uniform that vilified Mohammed in the same way.

Double standards anyone?

The same report also acknowledged the existence of radical groups at the Mardi Gras who engaged in lewd sexual behaviour during the parade in the presence of children. I struggle to understand how any taxpayer-funded organisation can deem the behaviour at the Mardi Gras as ‘culture’ that is worth accepting, let alone promoting. I also struggle to understand how the military, which is reeling from an ongoing barrage of sexual misconduct allegations can possibly think that associating with these groups is going to help address this problem.

Defence has a policy on unacceptable behaviour. It is also a lawful general order for those people who are interested in these things, like, say, a Regimental Sergeant Major. It states that a Defence workplace is any place where Defence members are on duty. That means when Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM marches down Oxford Street in the Mardi Gras parade on 7 March 2015 it will become a Defence workplace. And Defence policy prohibiting religious vilification, political vilification and lewd sexual behaviour will apply.

It also means that Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM will be breaking other lawful general orders that require him to stop unacceptable behaviour and to report it. Instead, he will be setting a standard by what he marches past and who he marches with.

I’ll have much more to say about the hypocrisy, double-standards, blatant discrimination and persecution by the higher ranks in the Australian Defence Force against any member who dares to cross the LGBT mafia within the military over the next few weeks. For instance, Defence turns a blind eye to the political nature of the Mardi Gras, even though its own reports recognise this fact. However, when current serving, non-LGBT personnel have asked for the same recognition and same freedoms as LGBT members to wear their uniform at ‘conservative’ events of importance to them, Defence has denied the request on the basis that orders prohibit uniformed attendance at political events.

And, for the record, these personnel do not support the idea of a military that marches in political events, but now that the door has been opened, they are just after the same ‘rights’ that LGBT service personnel enjoy.

But for this post, I’ll leave the last line to a Vietnam veteran. He wrote to me to express his disgust at the decision taken by Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM to march in this perverted political rally. If the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army does happen to read this post, he might like to think about whether he really is proud of his decision to break with the long line of honourable soldiers who held this important position before him (and I was recently informed by a knowledgeable source that there was an officer assigned to reading my posts every day until my commission was terminated, so there is a good chance that Dave Ashley will be duly directed to its contents).

Of course, Vietnam veterans came from a military that was focused on fighting wars, so maybe that explains the disdain. The hierarchy of the Australian Army has not spent much time talking about Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan lately, and they have done even less to win those wars. But the Chief of Army has been up on stage with Angelina Jolie. In fact, just yesterday Lieutenant General David Morrison revealed that he had pondered feminism and the ideas of feminist-perspective authors more deeply than “any other big issue” while he had been Chief of Army.

It just shows you where the priorities are.

Anyway, this sentence pretty much sums up how many veterans feel. It comes from a regular reader of this website:

“I cannot imagine any RSM of the Army I knew putting up with this rubbish.”

Warrant Officer Class One Dave Ashley, AM is not like any former Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army. Current serving members know it. Veterans know it. And he knows it.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. Shame on you, Binskin, Morrison and RSMA. Who’s political agenda are you serving.

    Post a Reply
  2. Thank you Bernie Gaynor, I’ve been saying this for years. Through an ex diggers eyes I have seen that the military has become too p.c and more about equity and diversity than doing it’s job.

    If you ask me it’s a disgrace and seems to be happening world wide in politics, just look at the U.S military changing don’t ask don’t tell. The military is meant to do it’s job of defending a nation, not be a political/social experiment.

    I don’t care if people are gay, just don’t openly flaunt it, I don’t want to know about your bedroom activity for gods sake. Australia’s enemys would look at this and laugh, ISIS would be given further political ammunition/propaganda in their fight against Aus.

    I will agree with the above posts that LBGT policy in the ADF, reduces cohesion in a traditionally masculine environment, I will say this at the risk of being a misogynist, it was bad enough having women in the military for cohesion/morale in a traditionally masculine environment.

    The women would sleep around with the hierarchy, in particular if they were attractive and get promoted faster, not based on merit but sexual favours lol. I remember 2 instances of female clerks being promoted to full CPL in 2 years and they were attractive, they were not fantastic at their jobs either. You can’t tell me they didn’t bend over a desk or get on their knees! Furthermore there tend to be fights/arguments over the affection of women, it’s detrimental to a traditionally masculine environment!

    Post a Reply
  3. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

    If seeking security, harmony and a flourishing life One should not judge a person, a community, a Nation by the colour of their skin, the level of their intellect nor their physical dexterity but One must certainly judge them by the character of ALL their “insulting, dangerous, and wrong” cultural foundation codex regards Other, particularly as it relates to the status of women relative to men.

    For only after complete examination by oneself (not taking anyone else’s subjective word for it) of the cultural Foundation codex regards Other and Women, and ignoring demonstrative pious claims utilizing select abridged versions of the cultural Foundation codex to hide the truth, will you be able to conclude such a person, such a community, or such a Nation will eventually cause you more harm than good and is really not worth having anything to do with, and must be excluded from the Public Square for the sake of attaining security, harmony and a flourishing life.

    Therefore for me it is not someones sexual orientation you have to worry about for clearly it can and is proven heterosexuals have no less tendency to evil than homosexuals it is the relative degree of prejudice against Other and the cultural methodology justified and authorised against Other which determines the relative threat of a person, a culture.

    Which brings me to a view as to why you Bernard find yourself culturally inculcated with your view of righteous prejudice against homosexuals arising I believe as a direct consequence of the Christian codex’s (bibles) construct of women.

    A view: Why homosexuality is determined as ‘evil’ in religious texts. Contradictions are not allowed in cultural codex that’s why.

    A key indicator that a cultural genocide codex construct exists as a method of resolving diametrically opposed values in the same political space is the degree to which its cultural codex constructs seek to control the most intimate of human relationships sex. This is a function of the cultures (Mans) determination to maximise their genetic reflection into next generations but one suspects really this if it is an underlying subconscious imperative, the conscious drive is much more of a self-serving force in delivering to man the pleasure of sex with the least effort to do so

    As cultural codex cannot broach contradictions, as such contradictions bring the whole codex into question for if the logic is not valid in one part why should it for any of the other codex construct, the cultural categorisation engine therefore needs to identify, characterise precisely who are to benefit and lose. As it is Mans control over women’s sexuality which is the dominant precept the existence of a women-women partnership/marriage and man-man partnership/marriage determines an equality within the latter two and not in the first.

    It has therefore has nothing to do with homosexuality being intrinsically evil it is because to determine valid within a codex construct the two relationships of equality Benefit Women-Benefit-Woman and Benefit Man-Benefit Man means the inequality of the first, Benefit-Man, Lose-Women becomes manifest, a contradiction and therefore cannot exist within the codex.

    This is what drives a real phobia against homosexuals for those who determine women, subject to Mans ‘Leadership’ which really means Mans control over sexuality cannot have their own relationship construct contradicted in their presence. For it means Man will lose power and Women will gain power.

    I would argue the degree any cultural codex attempts to subjugate women to Mans determination will indicate the degree one could expect this culture presents a threat to you as an out-group as such iniquitous constructs necessarily require an iniquitous means of enforcing the construct internally and acceptance externally relative to the iniquity of the construct.

    So for me the measure of any culture or society is the relative degree they subjugate women to Mans will and with them inevitably homosexuals for my view dictates the construct of women and homosexuals are integrally linked. So if we can remove from the Public Square such codex determining women as less we will not only achieve equality in time for women, but at the same time have homosexuals determined rightly as the norm and gosh did you just notice terror has somewhat diminished?

    If I am right Bernard you in fighting against homosexuals taking their rightful place in society are in fact supporting the very cultural codex to remain in the Public Square you and I believe must be removed as quickly as possible for peace and harmony to have at least a chance to exist in our Public Squares – because for women to gain equality in power and position informs exactly the same will occur for homosexuals in any such society, for the nature of women’s condition are integrally linked to the nature of the homosexuals condition.

    So in reality what are you fighting for Bernard the idea women should remain subject, within four walls as at least one of the comments on this site has inferred. From my view whether you realise it or not this is exactly what you and those who support your views on homosexuality are doing. So every step forward against the Islamic construct you step back with every comment against homosexuality. You are in fact enabling the Islamic construct to remain exactly where it is to flourish.

    I could be wrong.

    Post a Reply
    • To Mark Smith, What the hell did I just read, you do dribble on and at the end your message is lost, if there was indeed a message to start with.
      The only part that made any sense was when you finshed and said I could be wrong.

      Post a Reply
    • Wonderful use of words. Problem is they just don’t make sense.

      Post a Reply
  4. Ashfield, a Sydney suburb noted for its Chinese population and its fabulous Shanghai food, on its Council building’s flagpole, has as its only flag fluttering in today’s wind, a rainbow decorated one. Ashfield is not known for its “Sad” population, though yesterday I was forced by the contingency of the situation to explain to my 7-year-old why 2 men were kissing in the car outside of our place.

    Ashfield also has 1 or 2 public freaks who believe an above-knee mini, lipstick and a flower in your hair can instantly transform a male to a woman. I guess that’s what justifies this Council’s push for minority rights.

    Post a Reply
  5. Top Brass Mongrels….can’t even understand nor follow Standing Orders that specifically state that the uniform is NOT to be used for any political or private purpose.
    Top brass had no need in the whole wide world to even consider giving permission for OUR uniform to be allowed to be paraded in the Sydney Mardi Gras.
    Makes one wonder about the caliber of those that have made it to the top echelon of our military force today of which I was once a proud member.
    A would neither be proud or a member today, of our armed forces for I would not follow these Top Brass idiots even to a foot ball match, they are a disgrace to all that have gone before them as TRUE LEADERS.

    Post a Reply
  6. It’s a disgrace that the WO and, I assume, the WOD of the RAAF is marching in a blatantly political demonstration. I really do despair at the priorities of the defence chiefs. They should be prohibiting this behaviour not condoning it.

    Post a Reply
  7. Having served in the ADF for a number of years, as my father and brother did some years earlier (WW2 and Vietnam respectively), I would like to say “thanks, Gaynor” for putting this out there, once again, despite all the heckling and opposition against you get.

    Morrison has obviously got other high ranking supporters (along with a gutless majority who won’t say anything … well, publicly), but the fact is, he’s a disgrace to the ADF (past, present and future) and is dragging it deeper into the gutter. His allowing army personnel to march in Sydney’s Mardi Gras cesspit of debauchery, in ADF uniform, is merely one thing in a long line of things this man is doing.

    Post a Reply

    Post a Reply
  9. I am ex-soldier, ex-store manager and ex-policeman, and in that order. I could see the affects back in the mid 1970s when I was stationed at Holsworthy of the impact that women were then beginning to have within a traditional (and for good reason) Male domain, even though they were mainly employed in areas away from front line positions.

    I witnessed even more of that disruption as a police officer as women and homosexuals are now regarded as something special to have in the police force and even rate higher than the normal male police officer.

    It is not possible that the two genders and those who consider themselves a bit of both can effectively work together as a team and achieve maximum effort. Oh sure, there can be a general adequacy reached as such – for which we are constantly reminded by those who just cannot admit their own failure – but should we now settle for adequate performance rather than maximum effort just because some like to pretend they are just as good as the traditional warrior class in the positions they place themselves into?

    Our future enemies are taking note of our stupidity in allowing ourselves to fall away in fighting prowess simply because the cowards have now taken control and pander to a political class that has well and truly lost the plot on what a defence force should be capable of achieving.

    Much of what you write about Bernie came about under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd regime when Stephen Smith was Defence Minister. I would like to ask that bastion of diversity (Smith) just exactly what it was that he was hoping to achieve when he forced implementation of policies that Morrison defends with his own faux pretence when trying to defend the indefensible. Morrison may have made it all the way to the top of the heap, but he is a rotten actor when it comes to his personal convictions at press conferences.

    Post a Reply
  10. I got into an argument about gay marriage & was told ‘It doesn’t effect you’. The response stumped me & I thought he may have been right, but I was curious to know if it would ‘indirectly effect me’ or not. So I went & did some research (very recent) that suggests children brought up with gay parents usually face more instability, social problems & sexual confusion compared to those brought up in a normal heterosexual environment.

    I agree Bernard. Marriage between gay, same sex couples is not equal to heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage in my opinion would only create more belief & motivation that 2 men or 2 women can bring up children as married couples equal to that of a man & women & this is simply not the case.

    Marriage is between a man & women with an aim (in most cases) to raise children & the marriage certificate provides a solid legal contract to assist in maintaining stability & commitment. Marriage is not for 2 gay people to parade their equality, as if sexual attraction to the same sex is on par with heterosexual couples, when it is simply not. It definitely is not on par with the research showing the effect it has on children. Same sex marriage would only send the wrong message.

    Post a Reply
  11. We are (so far) free country, that is mean anybody who feel as a homosexual can freely marching on Mardi Gras. But a fact that some of members of ADF will be marching in the uniforms, will be disgrace of ADF and our traditions !

    Post a Reply
  12. How can anyone be surprised if the Army encourages this piece of socio-sexual engineering, and sees it play out in other sexual preoccupations at Duntroon. Both are part of the same context: contempt for sexual mores. The Army needs to sort out what it wants because it can’t favour one about the other. Soldiers are pretty smart, they will spot straight away that ‘follow your perversion’ is the only game in town.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest