In the last weeks, we have witnessed the High Court of Australia hand down a decision in regard to homosexual union. This ruling had particular reference to the attempt by the ACT government to introduce its own legislation allowing homosexual union.

What do we, as Christians, make of this ruling? What are the ramifications? Should we rejoice or should we weep? What must our attitude be moving forward?

Well, if you are up for it, let’s take a look together. I cannot guarantee that this work will be short. I can guarantee that it will be provocative. I have no idea of your current stand on the issues that will be presented. I do know that if you will read and consider the ideas presented that you may well find yourself with a need to abandon one or many of them.

1. A Wake-up Call.

The first thing to say is that this ruling by the High Court of Australia should be and must be a wake-up call to all Australians, but particularly to the Christians of this nation. For a long time, various people and organisations have been alerting us to an ever creeping and thus ever growing darkness that is pervading our land.

Many have ignored these warnings. Some have dismissed the warnings because a bit of darkness has allowed them to indulge in pet sins. Others have dismissed the warnings as the paranoid ravings of the lunatic religious fringe. Then there are those whose sleeping ears have not been alert to the warnings.

After this ruling there simply is no excuse for not believing and not acting positively upon these warnings. Here, a right parallel can be drawn in regard to the “gun debate” that has long endured in this nation. As a shooter, it was not uncommon to hear derisive comments when certain arguments were made for owning guns. The scorn was at times palpable. Then came September 11. This was followed by the Bali bombings in 2002. Then, in 2005, there were the London and second Bali bombs. People no longer pour scorn and derision on these same arguments.

The simple fact was that the critics had to concede that what was once, in their estimation, nothing more than the ‘outlandish speculations of the fringe dwellers’ had now become a distinct possibility in our ever changing world.

So it is that this ruling should be considered as a cataclysmic event that has not only justified all the previous warnings, but which awakens us from our slumber and encourages us to take a stand.

2. God is the standard of Truth.

The issue of homosexual union has become a massive debate in this country. The question that is rarely, if ever, asked is, “On what authority do we stand?” This is very problematic for the Modernists and Postmodernists who have no belief in objective truth. All they can argue is feeling, opinion, or brute desire. They have no ground for a moral or ethical argument. Nor do they have ground for a timeless argument.

For example, in the current debate we hear a lot about “traditional marriage”. What then, if we pose the following questions — What is this convention? What does traditional mean? What is a marriage? What constitutes a marriage? Who performs a marriage? What makes a marriage binding?

How shall these questions be answered without an objective reference? The simple response is that they cannot be answered or they must be answered by contrivance. If I do not believe that truth is knowable or that objective truth exists, how can I argue the merits of anything? You see, at this point, I not only have no framework for deciding right or wrong, I do not even possess a framework for knowledge, understanding, or communication.

So may laugh at this. Nonetheless, the fact remains. Without a belief in the Bible’s God as the source of all truth, one is simply guessing in the dark. One of the greatest examples of this is the doctrine of Evolution. How does order come from chaos? How does cognition come from the incognisant? The very core doctrine of Evolution demands that something which is today, will not be tomorrow. No consistent evolutionist could be a mathematician because in his world twp plus two may equal four today, but tomorrow it may equal grapefruit!

Thus, when the Bible’s God is removed as the source of truth, a person, a nation, a culture cannot help but enter a state of flux and requisite confusion.

3. God is the Standard of Truth.

To borrow a line from Red Dwarf, “I am aware that it is technically the same point, but it is such a big point, I thought it was worth mentioning it twice!”

My charge to my brethren and to my countrymen is this, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Now, let’s make it simple. When you hold your wife in your arms are you holding a real woman or are you embracing a figment of your imagination? If you choose the first, then you believe in objective truth. The simple reality is that we all operate on the fact that objective truth exists each and every day. We simply could not function if we did not.[1]

Regrettably, when it comes to morals and ethics, we like to pretend that this absolute and objective truth ceases to exist – yes, even Christians are guilty at this point. We like the stipulation of God’s law, “do not commit murder / steal”, but we are wont to become hazy on “do not commit adultery / covet.” Now, the salient point:  As we have become hazy on the stipulations regarding sexual deviation and perversion we have become more apt to compromise on the murder and theft issues as well.[2]

This illustrates the fact that we cannot deviate from God as the source of truth on one or two issues and stay faithful on the rest. When we turn from God, we turn completely from God. Man’s rebellion against God is not half-hearted or timid. It is complete. You see, when Man starts to turn from God, he does not start with “thou shalt not murder / steal”, he starts with, “I am the Lord God, have no other gods but Me!” Once this command is jettisoned, the rest become cultural hangovers and social mores that are malleable, plasticine, and ephemeral.

Therefore, we must understand that these issues are inextricably linked. The glue that binds them is Almighty God. As James says, we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. God gave them all. If we contravene one, we, in essence, contravene them all.[3]

The lesson here is that we, especially we Christians, must be consistent. If you wish not to obey God’s law, then put your hand up and identify yourself as an anarchist. Start driving on the wrong side of the road. Cross on the red light. Do not pay for your groceries, and make your neighbour’s wife your own.

What you cannot do is feign obedience. You cannot, as it were, sit on the fence. You cannot say that you will accept the position outlined in God’s law at X, Y, and Z, but deny it at A, B, and C. This is the same challenge as that thrown down by Elijah on Mount Carmel – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”[4]

God’s word alone is truth. All else is a subjective morass of opinion, speculation, and brute desire. Our people, our nation will be, and are, bogged down, unable to move. Having been robbed of the True foundation, they stand in this quagmire, slowly and surely sinking. Each move, each demand for yet more Godlessness only hastens the body’s submersion in the muck.

At this point, I particularly appeal to my brethren. Let us stop arguing figures, surveys, and science, and start arguing, unashamedly, for the whole of God’s revealed truth to be applied to our lives and to the statutes of our nation.

4. Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.

Over the years, I have seen and heard many Christians become excited at the news of this ‘survey result’ or that ‘court decision’. Sadly, however, this joy is fleeting.

I understand the desire that these sincere brethren display. They believe that Jesus is King. They believe that Jesus has the right to be heard. They understand the nature of spiritual warfare. All this is very good.

However, we must realise that a single court case or survey result means very little. The content of that survey or court decision must be unpacked and explored. As an example, I have heard for years and years about the proportion of Americans who believe in “God”. On the surface, this is wonderful news. However, when we begin to think it through we quickly find problems. In what God do they believe? If so many believed in the God of the Bible, why is America on a downhill slide? If so many Americans believe in the One living and true God, why does it seem as though God has abandoned that country?

One does not need to be a great theologian to discover that the Bible teaches that God only blesses obedience. Equally, one does not have to be a great theologian to see that the Bible also illustrates clearly that people are apt to go through religious motion when the heart is far, far from God.

So let us not mistake an action or decision, which seems to go in the right direction, for heartfelt, God-honouring obedience and true reform.

5. The High Court – Our Response in Summary.

Whilst many in this nation rejoiced at the High Court’s decision to overturn the ACT’s law on homosexual union, the simple and harsh reality is that there was no cause for joy in that decision.

The High Court did not act for God. The High Court did not act in obedience to God’s word. Neither did the High Court act from heartfelt obedience nor a right sense of obligation to strike down this attempt to normalise homosexuality. The Court simply came to the decision that two laws were in conflict and that the Federal law had priority. As such, this decision was not a win for God or for Christians. It was nothing less than a technical decision that maintained the status quo.

On the other hand, there are many diabolical elements contained in this decision that few in this country understand. These elements should place fear in the heart for they are the fulfilment of all the warnings that have been issued thus far. That is why we termed this decision as a “cataclysmic event”.

It is clear that the High Court favours the normalisation of homosexuality. One even gets the impression that they wished that they could have given the whole thing a green light there and then. However, they were constrained by technicalities at law, not by morals, to overrule the ACT’s legislation. [5]

This conclusion can be illustrated, in part, by the High Court, first, deferring a decision and, second, allowing unions under the ACT law while the court deliberated. This led to the provocative situation of some 20 odd couples going through a ceremony that was annulled a few days later. This was an unmitigated stunt on the part of a body that should know the meaning of integrity.

This said, the real devil was certainly in the detail. When the High Court explained itself, we were led into the Postmodern conundrum of decision without foundation. We were introduced to meaningless drivel being served up as the basis for law. In fact, we can go further, the High Court eradicated any foundation or standard for law, meaning, and governance outside of the brute will of the elected government.

Some may be hesitant at the statements made. If so, continue with me, please, as we explore and unpack some aspects of the High Courts decision.

6. The High Court – A State of Flux.[6]

One of the reasons that the Church and our nation – indeed, nations around the world – are experiencing upheaval and discontent can be directly attributed to the concepts embodied in the modern adage of “Change for changes sake!” When this maxim was embraced and coupled with the Postmodern denial of truth and absolutes, it made for a deadly combination.

These philosophies of decay, embraced in the 19^th century, meant that change was not only good, but possible, for there were no longer any moral absolutes or objections standing in the way of change.[7]

The philosophy that change for no reasons other than change was good and change was possible bred discontentment. It allowed sin to take the reins. If people did not have something new every so often, they were unhappy, unsatisfied, and often considered themselves as somehow less than others. You know this to be true. How many people do you know, especially in the younger generation, who have to have a new mobile phone as soon as the next model is released? There is nothing wrong with their current phone except that it is superseded.

When we think in these terms we can see the principle. However, when we speak simply of gadgets we can be tempted to see this purely in terms of consumerism. To show how this state of discontent has wide ranging ethical implications, let’s apply this theory to marriage. What happens when you see the next model? It comes in a new case and is of a more attractive design. It may also be a bit lighter than the current model. It has certain assets that get you excited. They may be nice to play with. At this point your imagination is running wild with the possibilities offered by the new model.

So let’s pause for a minute. Let us approach it differently. Let us start with this question, “What is wrong with the current model?” Truthfully, the answer is, “Nothing!” Then we can think back to the days when we first received this model. It had great assets. It too got us very excited. We were intrigued with it for quite a while. Then we ask, “Has it failed us in some gross way?” Again, we must answer, “No!”

So at the end of all this, the only reason that you have for tipping out your current wife and obtaining a new one is that she has aged. Newsflash. Stand in front of the mirror buddy. I bet you ain’t so hot anymore either! Anyway, I digress.

Can you see how this discontentment is easily spread? “Change for changes sake” when coupled with the abandonment of truth and morals  is a dark adage that has spawned great evils. It has pandered to the selfish desires of the masses and created untold damage. It makes people think only of what might be, not what is or what was. It causes you to live in a fantasy world free from moral restraint.[8]

In opposition to this, The Bible talks about contentment. Proverbs 5:18-19, speaking of marriage says this: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.”

The simple reality of life is that we grow old.[9] Discontentment will easily creep in to a marriage if we are only thinking of ‘what might have been’ or ‘what might be.’ This is particularly true if you have imbibed some foolish, worldly, and ephemeral view of marriage that looks only at the needs of the individual.

One of the doctrines that can help us most at this point and one of the doctrines most hid from view in our day, is the Doctrine of the Immutability of God. This doctrine states that God, in His essential nature, plans, purposes, and powers does not change. Why can I believe the promises of God? God does not change!

In this current debate – and many beside – this doctrine gives us a solid foundation. When we return to the book of Genesis, we find a whole lot about marriage.[10] The first thing that must be noted is that marriage is founded by God and for His purposes. God made Man in His image and He made this Man male and female. We also see that this Man was given a mission – he was to take dominion over this world in God’s name. Furthermore, we see that this dominion was directly related to the sexuality of Man as male and female. God designed Man to marry and through marriage to bear children in order to take dominion.

The importance here is that marriage is immutable for it was founded upon and given purpose by the One living, true, and immutable God. This is precisely why laws protected marriage. In times past we spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. In short, we acknowledged that marriage was more than a social construct or tradition. We acknowledge that it was holy, that is was set apart, that it was not to be trifled with. We did this because we understood that marriage in its design and purpose rested upon the immutable, the unchangeable and unchanging God of Scripture.

December 12, 2013 and the High Court of Australia rewrites history and takes a pair of scissors to the Bible. In section 16 they state:

The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

In this statement, the High Court has revealed the single reason that marriage has been systematically attacked and undermined in this country. It reveals the reason that has led to the current demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry – in the Court’s opinion, there is no absolute standard for marriage![11]

From this point, the High Court goes on to give various illustrations of how marriage has been reinterpreted over time, especially since federation.[12] The problem is that they are guilty of a logical fallacy or of “straw man” syndrome. In short, they presuppose that marriage is mutable – changeable. They presuppose that marriage is a social status that may have different forms at different times in history. Thus, they bring in illustrations to show these changes and thereby legitimise their decision.

Let’s illustrate the problem with this analogy. As a Christian it is not wrong to undertake any lawful vocation. Conversely, those vocations that are illegal or immoral are excluded. Now we must ask, who decides on the legality and morality of a vocation?

It is Victorian England. Murray’s daughter comes home all excited. She announces to her father that she has gained employment. He excitedly asks, “What is the position and for whom shall you be working?” His daughter then states that she is going to be a prostitute and that she would be working at the local brothel. Victorian Murray would not rejoice at this news and would most likely toss his daughter out of his house.

Fast forward.  It is 2014, Murray’s daughter comes home. Same exuberance. Same conversation. What is modern Murray’s response? He rises from his chair, embraces his daughter, and congratulates her on choosing and old and enduring profession. What else can he do? After all, brothels are now legal.

Modern Murray must accept his daughter’s decision, if we are to believe that morality and ethics are transient and not immutable. Modern Murray has no ability to rebuke or criticise his daughter’s decision because the government has said that brothels can now operate legally.

This is the quagmire entered into when morality is removed from it foundation in the immutable, eternal God and placed upon the ephemerality of finite Man’s opinion. Everything must change. What was yesterday will not and cannot be the same tomorrow.

Therefore, what the High Court has declared is that marriage is a social construct that is completely malleable. Marriage can and must be formed or shaped by the social needs of any nation, at any time, in any place up to and including the abolition of all marriage. The institution of marriage has no link to the Bible’s God. It has no moral basis. It has no reference to Man as male and female. Marriage is not the immutable creation of God, but rather the social construct of fallen Man.

7. The High Court – The God of the Bible is Dead!

The repercussions of the High Court’s decision and reasoning are immense.

Some in this nation have been warning about the consequences of Australia becoming a Secular nation. Those people have been ridiculed and persecuted. As with the “Gun Debate” analogy above, we hope that those rumblings will now settle down. We hope that people will see the monster that has been released by the High Court.

Now, let me be clear. The anti-God philosophy displayed in the High Court’s decision is not new. It has been slowly but surely building both momentum and followers for some time. The point is that now the ramifications of that anti-God philosophy should be clear.

When people call for a secular Australia, when politicians refer to decisions good for us as a secular state, understand that they are speaking code. When they use these terms they are calling for nothing less than a concept of government that is completely uniformed and untouched by the God of the Bible. Implicit in these statements is the tenet that God is Dead – if not in reality, then as an exiled son, cast out and no longer welcome.

This is why Christians have been given less and less voice. This is why other minorities have been encouraged. This is why Christmas is attacked. This is why ridiculing Christians and Christianity is acceptable.[13] This is why free speech, particularly, true speech is gagged. This is why PC is a one-way street – leading away from God’s immutable and eternal decrees.

The reality is very simple. We are not arguing about whether there should be a God for this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have law in this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have cultural structure and rules in this nation. No. What we are arguing over is Who is the rightful God and the determiner of law and morality in this nation! That is the battleground.

The High Court has declared the One living and true God of the Bible dead. However, this cannot be construed as the High Court denying all sovereignty. When God is pushed aside, a void is created. Man cannot live with this void. It makes him uncomfortable. Being formed in the image and likeness of God, Man likes rules and government. Man, in general, likes order. The sticking point is, again, the question of, “Whose rules are to be obeyed?”

Fallen Man cannot abide the governance of God, so he must declare that God is dead. Man must clear the path for a god of his own making to be established, worshiped, and obeyed.

8. The High Court – The Elected Government replaces God.

Consequently, the High Court had to focus upon the Federal Parliament’s right to make rules regarding marriage without reference to God.

In section 9, we read:

This Court must decide whether s 51(xxi) permits the federal Parliament to make a law with respect to same sex marriage because the ACT Act would probably operate concurrently with the Marriage Act if the federal Parliament had no power to make a national law[5] providing for same sex marriage. If the federal Parliament did not have power to make a national law with respect to same sex marriage, the ACT Act would provide for a kind of union which the federal Parliament could not legislate to establish. By contrast, if the federal Parliament can make a national law providing for same sex marriage, and has provided that the only form of marriage shall be between a man and a woman, the two laws cannot operate concurrently.

What is being said here can be simplified to this – Does the Federal Parliament have an absolute right to decree what marriage is to be up to and including, but not limited to, homosexuality?

The High Court answered with a, Yes! The supposed dilemma that the Court faced was this – if the Federal Parliament could not make legislation in this area, then the ACT’s law could stand. However, if the Federal Parliament did have the authority, even though they did not exercise it, the ACT’s law could not stand.

Therefore, context aside, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Government is to replace God as the source of morality. The Federal Parliament can now make any law that is deemed to be within its right, regardless of the dictates of God.

Speaking Biblically, the above court case should never have got off the ground. A judge true to his oath and calling would have struck this legislation down as he would have realised that the proposition was contrary to God’s law. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into, by governments or lesser judges.

Yet, as we have seen, what the High Court did was to foster the God is Dead philosophy by paying homage to the rights and power of the Federal Parliament. In taking this stand, the High Court has declared the Federal Parliament to be omnipotent. The Federal Parliament can now rule with absolute surety that all is within its power.

We have witnessed this type of government many times throughout the ages. It is called tyranny! When the law makers refuse to acknowledge that they are themselves men under authority, the only possible end is tyranny.

The High Court has now handed to the Federal Parliament the very thing it has been champing at the bit for, carte blanche! It now has the power to terrorise every Christian and dissenter. It has now been given entry into your homes and to the very essence of your being.

“How so?” you ask. It is a matter of warfare and of equal and opposites. If the Federal Parliament establishes laws in favour of homosexual unions, especially if it is termed as “marriage”, it automatically attacks every authentic marriage. Just as counterfeit money disturbs the genuine currency, so a fake marriage must disturb the genuine marriage.

As the Federal Parliament only knows cooperation through force, people will be coerced into complying with the new definition of marriage. You should not be shocked at this statement. You already witness this tactic – Racial Vilification laws; Equal Opportunity laws; Anti-Discrimination laws. All these have one real aim – to force all to comply with the Federal Parliaments ideals of a harmonious and just society. The only real difference is that homosexual unions will bring the issue closer to home.

Therefore, once marriage is redefined, wholesale changes will need to be made to a range of official documentation, dictums, and conventions. For example, I already resent the term “partner” that appears on forms instead of husband / wife/ spouse. What terms will be presented for our enjoyment with the redefinition of marriage? What happens to terms like Mum and Dad? Rewrite the dictionaries! Ridiculous? Not at all. We have already seen this. Consider this dictionary definition of marriage:

• the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: [Examples deleted]
• (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
• [mass noun] the state of being married:[14]

Note that the second point has been inserted already as relevant to “some jurisdictions”. All that needs to happen is to delete the first definition and elevate the second and voilà the secular revolution in regard to marriage is complete.

What then of education. You believe marriage to be as God intended; a man and a woman for life. How do you object to this at the school council? What happens when you insist that your child answer contrary to the State’s position? What is your response to a please explain from the education board?[15]

What of the Christian marriage counsellor. What will happen when homosexuals turn up for counselling? Will you turn them away? Will you capitulate to the State and recognise them as legally married? Are you willing to risk your business and even jail by turning these people away?

These are but a few examples of the situations that will arise, given current examples, if the Federal Parliament legalises homosexual union.

Oh please, do not be the ignoramus par excellence and claim that the Government will add caveats or exemptions for certain Christian organisations. What the Government giveth the Government can and will taketh away![16] The Government, having been granted unlimited power, will not be slack in using that power to enforce its will.

When the Government supplants God as the final arbiter on morality, we are in for a sticky end. It is no accident that every culture that has embraced homosexuality has faltered and slipped from the pages of history. We often hear about the glory of Rome and her system, but few speak of the fall of Rome as a consequence of her debauchery.

Enamoured with her own power and authority, Caesar claimed to be a god. From this point, totalitarian rule and tyranny became the order of the day. Men were slaughtered for pleasure and entertainment. Sexual perversion abounded. Children were left to die. Life was both honoured and cheapened.

It is a dark day when the Government believes that it can rightly sit in God’s seat and rule by its own power.

9. The High Court – The Ramifications.

When Man usurps God, the consequences are incalculable. All that can be said is that there most definitely will be ramifications and that those ramifications will be negative. We have noted some ramifications already. We have hinted at the definite possibility of others, based on current practice. Still others come to light in the High Court’s reasoning.

Disturbingly, the High Court, in section 33, states:

Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde and other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.[17]

The reasoning at this juncture is once more questionable. That the Family Law Act recognises polygamous marriages is a fact. However, it does not do so permissively, but rather functionally. In other words, the Act recognises polygamous marriages from outside Australia for the sole purpose of enabling the Court to deal with them.[18]

Regardless of this fact, what we need to see is that debauchery begets debauchery. The High Court introduces the practice of polygamy only to enable the Biblical view of marriage to be maligned. By introducing a heterosexual distortion, it is but a small step to utter perversion.

Hence, this section does not speak about a man and a woman, but of “natural persons”. The whole point is to deny sexuality as a criterion for marriage. Also note, please, that the High Court’s definition is numberless. Having used polygamy as a jimmy bar to pry open the door, it cannot now limit the number of persons to that marriage.

What now? Well, my advice is that you go out and by one of those rain suits that covers you from top to bottom for things are going to get murky and filthy.

First, if Postmodernism were not so popular, the High Court would be a total laughingstock. When the theory of the Court is analysed it becomes clear that they have absolutely no objective criteria for marriage and no objective or absolute foundation on which they base the form and content of marriage. The best that they can establish is ‘marriage is what Federal Parliament says it is.’ As there is no objective basis for this decision, the power of the Federal Parliament is established by the power of the High Court. Thus, one entity validates the other in reciprocal acts of “back patting” and authentication.

What this means for every Australian is that the concept and definition of marriage will now be subject to complete change at the will of the Federal Parliament. As marriage is but a social construct, the Parliament will be able to issue its own decrees as to what form and content marriage should possess.

This is the precipice to which relativism and the denial of absolutes leads. You have forty people in a room and forty opinions are shared. Truth is not established on an objective foundation, nor by consensus, but by the person holding the highest office.

Just the other night, I came across a television show in which Tony Abbott’s assertion that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” was shot down by a reference to a Roman emperor who had two husbands. Triumph for the homosexuals!

The point here is not to bat for or against Tony Abbott, but to show that appealing to culture, science, or past happenings is not a valid means for establishing truth or ethical principle. It is for this reason that I have often been critical of brethren who use these methods. We cannot establish ethical principles for tomorrow based on what is or what was.

The weakness in Tony Abbott’s arguments is also shown to be present in the High Court’s reasoning – because both are secular rationalists who deny God’s revelation as truth. The High Court has no objective standards, so they are reduced to a set of arguments concerning this case or that case or what happened when, particularly limiting the time frame to Federation. Consequently, we are introduced to statements like:

1. Observing that, at federation, English law would recognise as a marriage only a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde, and would not provide matrimonial remedies in respect of any other kind of union, accurately describes the then state of the law. (Section 28.)
2. The great conflict of laws writer, A V Dicey, described [43] the rule which was adopted in the cases as an “instance of the principle that the rules of (so-called) private international law apply only amongst Christian states”. The rule treated some, but not all, forms of marriage contracted according to other laws as either not worthy of recognition or not able to be recognised because their incidents were not compatible with English law. (Section 29.)
3. These being the bases for the nineteenth century decisions, those decisions did not then, and do not now, define the limit of the marriage power (or the divorce and matrimonial causes power) in the Constitution. Decisions like Hyde v Hyde reflect no more than the then state of development of judge-made law on the subjects of marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes. Subsequent development of both judge-made law and statute law shows this to be so. (Section 30.)
4. First, it was established in 1890 by Brinkley v Attorney-General[44] that, despite the frequent reference found in earlier decisions to “Christian marriage” and “marriage in Christendom” as distinct from “infidel” marriages[45], a monogamous marriage validly solemnised according to the law of Japan between “a natural born subject of the Queen … having his domicil in Ireland” and “a subject of the empire of Japan”, though not a Christian marriage, would be declared to be valid in English law. (Section 31).
5. More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like “marriages throughout Christendom”[47] or marriages according to the law of “Christian states”[48], or terms of disapproval, like “marriages among infidel nations”[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what “marriage” means.[19] (Section 36).

I realise that such quotes are not easy to read and can induce tedium. I would appreciate it if, despite this, you could ponder these texts to see how standing on shifting sand is both dangerous and ultimately futile. The High Court begins with what was the accepted standard for marriage and introduces excuse after excuse as to why those definitions or terms are no longer valid. Please note how section 36 takes to task the usage of the term “Christian” in making a distinction in marriage and ultimately asserts that all these law-makers were guessing in the dark – “obscure(ing) circularity of reasoning” and “begged the question of “what” marriage means”.

This is astounding, for these judges have basically stated that all (well, most) of the law on marriage is a guess by their predecessors and the lawmakers of the day as to what marriage is to be. Horrifyingly, in making this assessment, they have laid the foundation for their own interpretation of marriage to be accepted as the standard for our day – as they too guess in the dark!

You see, these men argue from no foundation in law to the relative laws of various jurisdictions today and at every turn they simply shoot themselves in the foot. The quotations show how the Court has argued for its point of view from and through a limited time period. Yet, the real kicker is their opening gambit – “The cases commonly referred to as providing a definition of “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution must be read in the light of the issues decided in those cases. Each case dealt with a particular question about either succession to property or the jurisdiction of the English courts to grant a decree of dissolution in cases concerning a marriage contracted in, and governed by the law of, a foreign country.”

What the Court admits at this point is that none of the cases cited were actually looking at the questions of the source of, form of, and essential constitution of marriage. Rather, these were cases of property settlement or divorce. Thus, at best, these cases can only be cited in a cursory way.

Similarly, after the Court’s little tour through history and its arrival at tacit approval for polygamous and homosexual unions, we are granted this little gem – “Other legal systems now provide [50] for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.”

Excuse me! Not useful or relevant to consider the how and why of these current decisions!! How can that be? A building falls down and there is an enquiry into the “how” and the “why” immediately. All attempts are made to make sure that these things do not happen again in future. So why is the High Court of Australia not interested in the “how” and “why” of the “recent development” of this issue?

It is very simple. If the Court opened that particular door and chose to walk through it, they would first have to admit that they are the Biblical fools of Psalm 14, who have ‘said in their hearts “There is no God.”’The Court would have to admit that there is only one foundation for marriage – God! The Court would have to admit that outside of Scripture there is no other basis for the institution of marriage. The Court would have to admit that there is only one type of marriage – Christian marriage – for marriage was ordained and commanded by God for all men. The Court would have to admit that marriage is timeless, ethical, purpose driven, and is founded upon absolutes. The Court would have to admit that marriage is not a social or cultural construct. Lastly, and importantly, the Court would have to admit that it was mistaken and that it too is bound by the authority of God Almighty. This the Court will not do.

In other words, the Court dismisses this necessary investigation precisely to guard its own premise – God is Dead (See footnote 18). If the court undertook this investigation, it would be obliged to highlight the correlation between the decline in moral standards and the acceptance of homosexual union. It would be patent that a moral shift had taken place within the culture and that the adoption of a new morality or paradigm for morality had led to the acceptance of these aberrant practices.

By now you will be tired of the words “absolute” and “objective”, but I hope that you can see more clearly the diabolical nature of modern relativism. We have before our eyes the High Court of Australia making fundamental decisions based on a foundation with less tensile strength and integrity than packaged custard!

When absolutes and objective truth are denied, relativism must take over. As we have said already, the consequences are enormous. Every man – including the High Court and every politician – will do what is right in his own eyes and chaos shall ensue.

Second, having established the Federal Parliament’s right to state what it will concerning marriage; having opened some doors to dubious behaviour; and having established these concepts on the all conquering principle of relativism, the Court is now reduced to contradictions and hypocrisy as they continue to argue their case. Truly, if it were not so disastrous and serious, I would be tempted to wax lyrical.

Think this through. The High Court have set out a point of law which states that the Federal Parliament alone has the right to determine what marriage is in this country. Having done that, it continues to argue its point by elucidating its thought process. The trouble is that the process utilised, as we have seen, is fundamentally flawed.

According to the High Court, a marriage is a “consensual union between natural persons”. If this is so, then all manner of abominations are possible. How many are too many in a marriage? Then it is not only plurality that is courted but homosexuality. Marriage could be six men, six women, three men and three women. As long as these are “natural persons” – no nestene duplicates[20] – and the relationship is consensual, there can be no limit! Moreover, as this is the Court’s reasoning and that reasoning has no terminus or restrictions in morality – the only terminator being the Parliament’s will – then whatever the Parliament allows is not only right but must be obeyed and instituted.

At this point, it would seem that bestiality is ruled out, though I have nagging doubts. After all, evolutionary theory states that Man is just one of the animals. I have also read some weird stuff on what constitutes “personhood”. Placing these two together with the High Court’s ridiculous definition could mean that ‘Dolly the sheep’ is popular again and that for the abominable reason.

Equally, we cannot let the “consensual” part of the definition go unnoticed. What of pederasty? What of incest? What of those laws that have prohibited consanguineous marriages?

Now, to be fair, the High Court states, in section 43:

Eligibility to marry is fixed by the two Acts with only one difference. Under the Marriage Act, a person aged between 16 and 18 years may marry [63] if certain consents are given or judicial authorisation is obtained. Under the ACT Act, an adult person may marry [64]. Both Acts prohibit [65] marriage between persons within the same prescribed degrees of affinity or consanguinity.

However, if marriage is mutable, without an absolute definition possible, then how do the High Court and the framers of the ACT legislation decide that these limitations should remain? If polygamy and homosexuality are legitimate by way of reasoning that there is no absolute definition for marriage, then marrying your son, daughter, sister, cousin, and /or aunt – remember, no limitation on numbers – should also be legal.

Once more, from where were the limits on consanguinity derived? They are Biblical.[21] Yep, that’s right; you will find them in the Bible and only the Bible. All other writings are simply playing “catch up” or are seeking to apply or interpret what the Bible has stated. So, here on display for all to see, is the High Court’s hypocrisy. The very Court that denies God any place in marriage, the Court that tells us that marriage cannot be absolutely defined, also turns out to be a court that insists on certain Biblical standards for the marriage covenant.

The parallel here takes us back to the beginning – we will accept ‘do not murder / steal’, but we do not want ‘do not have false gods or commit adultery’. Rebellious Man enjoys God’s command when it affords him protection, but he despises God’s command when it limits his rebellion. This principle has just been clearly demonstrated by the High Court.

When God is denied, all becomes a state of flux and guessing in the dark! If the High Court were consistent, in the slightest, they would admit that the only right application of their reasoning means that there is no limitation to marriage outside the words “consensual” and “natural persons”. Thus, restrictions on age could only be governed by the term “consensual”; that is to say a court would need to adjudicate on the question, “At what age does a person understand the concepts implied in marriage?” Outside of this, there can simply be no restriction.

Third, and this is a change of topic, but there is an unseen and unspoken ramification that is rapidly coming to the surface. It is a ramification that will affect us all. It has the possibility to be momentous in our nation’s history.

I speak here of the dissolution of the Federation of States that constitutes this nation.

One of the truly disturbing aspects that has come to the fore through this whole debate is the rancour of those arguing for homosexual union. So rabid are those people that they will stop at nothing – even, it seems, the destruction of our nation.

What is clear from the process with the High Court is that this has been a deliberate venture. Those bent on destroying marriage have launched the ACT legislation as a test case. Right now, highly paid lawyers will be looking through the High Court’s ruling seeking loopholes. The ACT sought to have their legislation stand alongside of the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act. The High Court has said that in its current form it cannot.

In Western Australia there is another piece of legislation being presented. They hope that by framing things slightly differently that the result will be a piece of legislation that will stand beside the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act in a way acceptable to the High Court.

What this means in reality is that this nation is going to see a series of High Court challenges. Tax payer’s dollars will be wasted by this anarchistic minority who will not accept any other decision but the one that gives them legal right to debauchery. These people agitated for and were given a vote in Parliament. They lost. They were soundly defeated. Then came the excuses. They were offered a referendum; that was not acceptable because the outcome was unknown and permanent. So now they relentlessly hassle the politicians and clog up the courts. For what? The destruction of our nation.

Please, think this through. At Federation the States surrendered certain aspects of governance to the Federal Parliament. Now, at the behest of a debauched few, that Federation is under attack. If a state finds a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the High Court as an adjunct to the Marriage Act, then it will have the ultimate effect of nullifying the Federal Parliament’s authority.

This being the case, how many court cases are going to be presented before the burden causes the Federal Parliament to cave? If the Federal Parliament does not cave, at what point are they going to, if ever, say, “Enough!” When homosexual and polygamous unions are legalised by the States, “What is next on the agenda?” Put another way, the current question is a Constitutional one. Therefore, if a State can find a way of negating the Federal Parliament’s sole right as the authority under the Constitution, as with the Marriage Act, what effect will that have for the very existence of Federal Parliament?

Stating it as plainly as possible, if any Sate can legitimately take on a function of the Federal Parliament, once the loophole is found, then each State will be able to bypass the Federal Parliament at will. What then? What will happen to our nation as a federation of States?

Again, some may see this as the stuff of doomsday prophecy. I assure you it is not. I have said many times that there are few, if any, Western countries that have not had a civil war. Australia stands out as one that has not been down that road. However, how long will it be before some in our society become tired of being bullied by this anarchistic minority? How long before the relativism and lack of truth spoken of in this article breeds contempt for law, indeed nullifies law altogether? After all, if there is no objective truth, the opinion of the highest office or biggest stick rules!

So please, give some thought to the possibility of this ramification. With the High Court officially embracing and endorsing relativism there is no objective answer. There is no right or wrong. There is only what the law allows or the law forbids. If the law allows adjunct law by the States, “What will happen to our nation?”

Conclusion:

The decision of the High Court is disturbing and that for many reasons. In this article we have simply tried to pin point the fundamental error in the Court’s thinking, or, if you will, in their premise or presupposition. We have also attempted to outline some of the ramifications of this decision. Some have to do with marriage. Others go far beyond that topic.

In the end, we must simply restate the old maxim, “Ideas have consequences”. The idea that “God is dead” will have consequences. The idea that Federal Parliament can rule without reference to God will have consequences.[22] The idea that marriage is nothing more than a social or cultural construct will have consequences. Allowing homosexual and polygamous unions will have consequences.

It may have been appropriate to add some words on the hot topics of “God and government” and “morality in law”. These topics need to be addressed for they have many people confused, including a good number of Christians.

Let me then add some help here. Church and State are separate institutions, but they are not the only institutions. These institutions exist because God created them. Therefore, they owe their full allegiance to God. The separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of “God and government”. God made government. Romans chapter 13 informs us that government is a minister of God and that it is bound to do His will. Therefore, laws must reflect morality – God’s morality.

Allow me to close with an apt quotation from the late R.J. Rushdoony:

The other night, a prominent lawyer, appearing on television, asked for the repeal of laws against abortion, narcotics, sexual perversions, and a number of other things. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said, “and it’s about time we stopped trying to do it.” The man was lying, and he knew it, because all law is about morality. When you legislate against murder, theft, libel, and the like, you are legislating morality. When you institute traffic laws, you are again legislating morality: you are penalizing traffic behavior which may endanger the life and property of another man. In other words, you are enacting specific forms of God’s law: Thou shalt not kill, and Thou shalt not steal. Legislation about the forms of court procedure is in terms of the law banning false witness; the purpose of such laws is to further true testimony. Even the salaries of public officials have moral implication: “[T]he labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18).

At every point, the law deals either with morality directly or with procedures for its enforcement. All law is enacted morality. Every criminal law says that a certain thing is right, and another wrong. Every law is thus a piece of legislated morality. Moreover, all morality represents a religion, as that every system of law is an establishment of religion. Thus, there can be a separation of church and state, but there cannot be a separation of religion and the state, because every system of law is a religion and a morality in action.

What the lawyer was actually saying was that he hated a Christian law system and wanted to replace it with a system of humanistic law. This is exactly the nature of our legal revolution today. The courts are changing the law by changing the religion behind the law.

What all law does legislate is morality, and you had better believe it before it is too late before you wake up to find the revolution is over, and you are the new outlaw in terms of the new morality, the new law, and the new religion. This has happened elsewhere, and it is happening here.[23]