Camille Paglia and Alison Maddex
Camille Paglia is an anti-feminist academic who is very outspoken about her views on the destruction wrought by the rise of gay activism. Paglia is also a lesbian and together with her former partner, Alison Maddex, offers little support for the redefinition of marriage:
“I have mixed feelings about this whole gay-marriage thing. Everyone should have equal rights under the law, period. But I don’t know that I want to take on the same ceremonies and contracts as heterosexuals. A lot of those fail. Gay marriage should be something unique.
It’s a bias against single people, too. Only children should benefit
Both of us are critical of the direction of gay activism on this. We have more of a radical attitude, which is a stripping away of the privileges. I want heterosexual marriage not to be given any kind of preferential treatment under the law.
There has been insufficient research into marriage and what it means. Civil marriage dates from a period when women didn’t have access to careers. It is ridiculous to demand gay marriage in a church or a synagogue. It is ludicrous to demand the approval of a religious tradition that is based on the Bible, which condemns homosexuality. So, we reject the church — and we live our own lives.
Camille is also quoted as saying this [I can't find the source to confirm]:
I think [gay marriage] is a flash point for antigay backlash…. That’s the problem: calling it a marriage. If you ask the working class guy on the street, ‘Do you believe in gay marriages?’ it makes him absolutely have a convulsion of revulsion. Marriage was traditionally meant for male and female. It was a bond for the raising of children, so it always had a procreative meaning too, and it has a long sacred tradition behind it. I hate any time that gay causes get mixed up with seeming to profane other people’s sacred tradition. The gay activist leadership has been totally clumsy about that. Rather than treating it in a serious way and saying ‘We respect the tradition of marriage,’ gay activism is associated with throwing balloons of blood at the steps of St. Patrick’s.
Mark Poidevin and Ben Rogers
These two homosexual men may not have been very prominent until recently, but they have been quoted in mainstream media and gay publications for stating their intent to vote No in the postal plebiscite. Poidevin and Rogers have been in a relationship for 15 years and believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution. Says Poidevin:
There’s never been any discrimination with any of our families, or dramas coming our way because of our sexuality. When I first came out I think one of the consequences was giving up marriage and children and things like that. If we make one exception for one community, that being the same-sex couples, where does it stop? Do we then see other cultures being allowed to have multiple marriages? Do we see the age of consent being lowered for another group of minorities? That is my concern, of where it would lead.
Along with their heterosexual counterparts who have expressed similar concerns, Rogers and Poidevin have astonishingly been labelled 'homophobes.'
Milo Yiannopolous
Milo Yiannopolous is a controversial gay commentator and Trump supporter. He was recently interviewed by journalist Andrew Bolt and gave his views on redefining marriage: [his comments on same-sex 'marriage' begin at 22:05]. As you will hear, Milo doesn't completely condemn the idea of an official recognition of a committed homosexual relationship, but he certainly isn't entirely supportive of redefining marriage either.
I sort of wish gay people wouldn't do it .... the paramount consideration for me is that the Christian churches and religion in general are protected from the politically-correct fads of politics....I don't think there is a strong enough case against gay marriage in a civil sense ....There was civil partnership in the UK that seemed to me to be just the right compromise ..... It wasn't called marriage and it didn't have that religious dimension, and it didn't, you know, deliberately, purposefully rub people up the wrong way.....
Mary Mahlia
Lesbian dating and relationship coach, Mary Mahlia, is against calling homosexual unions 'marriage':
It can really shift the balance or the course of a relationship in ways that, in states where it’s not legal, it’s pretty straightforward ... I think one of things we’ve had in our community is this opportunity to craft our own kind of relationship and our own kinds of commitments.
Yasmin Nair and Ryan Conrad
Yasmin Nair and Ryan Conrad are founders of a subversive online collective known as Against Equality. Conrad claims that there are disadvantages to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples:
I’m still not convinced that marriage is the best way of gaining protections for one’s partner. The gay marriage movement needs to be called out in its trouncing of domestic partnership benefits. In Connecticut, for example, upon ratification of gay marriage all domestic partnerships were dissolved, destroying many peoples’ (gay and straight) protections for their intimate and non-intimate partners. This idea that gay marriage is the only thing we should be fighting for, at the cost of reducing the number of ways in which all people can create partnerships actually reduces the number of ways people can access protections and collective benefits.
Nair says that:
Marriage, as configured in the U.S, is neoliberalism’s handiest little tool. It allows for the most intense privatization of resources by placing the responsibility for people’s welfare squarely in the realm of the family. Need health care? If you don’t have a job that gives you that, or have parents who can put you on their plan, or a spouse with a job that allows you access to the same, you’re screwed. In that sense, neoliberalism loves marriage – it’s an effective and economical way to ensure that the state can abdicate from its responsibility for people’s health and well being.
Nair also wrote a scathing review of a book about a legal battle concerning exemptions for same-sex couples from paying inheritance tax in their deceased partners' estates. In the review, Nair states
This is the genius of the gay marriage movement, its ability to make a privilege for the few seem like a necessity for the many. Gay marriage activists across the spectrum make the case for marriage as an essential bond in a healthy society. When such claims emerge from the mouths of Christian fundamentalists, the left is duly shocked but silent when gay advocates say exactly the same thing (and ignore the fact that marriage is in fact declining sharply among straight people)...
Doug Mainwaring
Doug Mainwaring is the co-founder of the National Capital Tea-Party Patriots. He wrote an excellent article for The Public Discourse, called I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage. Mainwaring is unusual in that he reconciled with his heterosexual ex-wife, in order to provide a stable home for their adopted children. From the article:
Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature. Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.
Keith Mills
Keith Mills is an agnostic gay man who was a leader in the No campaign during Ireland's debate on redefining marriage: [read more here]
Personally I believe that civil partnerships are a better way of reflecting the reality of most same-sex unions and the idea that a civil marriage 'one size fits all' method of legally recognising all unions fails to address the fact that the relationship that a man forms with another man is intrinsically different from the relationship that a man forms with a woman. This difference is as fundamental as a man and woman are themselves different.
10 plus 1: A blogger - Gays Vs Gay Marriage
'A blogger' doesn't sound like a very prominent person to include on this article, but this person (or persons) likes to keep his identity under wraps. This gay American dedicates an entire website to opposing same-sex marriage. His blogposts are rather crude, but this excerpt illustrates how he feels about redefining marriage. He calls it 'ceremonial jealousy.'
I say all this because of the big deal made over the difference between civil unions and “marriage.” Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle. This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that hate them. It’s also to send the message that gays can be just as boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be seen as a “traditional family.” Sorry, honey, as long as your junk don’t interlock, you’re not. This has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously.
There are way more than 10 gays who don't want marriage equality! This list represents only a few of the many homosexuals who are against the redefinition of marriage. There are Facebook groups, eg Gays Against Gay Marriage, We Defend Traditional Marriage - And We're Gay and also famous gays who have spoken out about other related issues, such as same-sex adoption. This pdf has even more quotes by gays who are against marriage equality. We may or may not agree with their reasoning, but nevertheless, it goes to show that the vocal minority are just that: a minority. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise: and please, vote no.
In accordance with s 6(5) of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017, this communication was authorised by Kathy Clubb of Melbourne, Vic.
