Jim Wallace's Very Bad Week

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Ghandi

I wouldn't want to be Jim Wallace this week. I wouldn't want to be Jim Wallace any day, but this week must've been spectacularly hard. This week, his moral crusade - the Australian Christian Lobby - is under attack on all fronts.

It was this week's surprise announcement that Sunrise was teaming up with Marie Claire and GetUp! in support of same sex marriage that triggered their latest campaign. The ACL, with their broad fiction linking the existence of homosexuality to endangering the welfare of children, jumped up and down and tried to convince their supporters to email-bomb Sunrise and it's advertisers. 

The ACL even approached ACMA (the Australian Communication and Media Authority) complaining that a "news and current affairs" programme should not be allowed to support a position. I guess they haven't seen The Bolt Report or listened to 2GB lately.

Sunrise saw the gathering controversy ahead of time, and invited Jim Wallace to debate Dr Kerryn Phelps on the show. Jim's nightmare continued. In fairness, the ACL's supporters felt he did a good job in hostile circumstances. I don't know that I'd categorise the environment as hostile - well, not until Mr Wallace compared the gay rights movement to Nazi Propaganda Meister Josef Goebbels. 

In that few moments, and with a national audience, he transformed the ACL from an annoying lobby group with rich, conservative friends in high places, to the an organised group of crazy extremists who represent the minority view.

The Australian published an editorial this morning in which Greg Callaghan commented:

In 2012 it is no longer acceptable to suggest that gay people are abnormal or unnatural, as the ACL regularly does, by separating us from "normal" heterosexuals in their nomenclature. Even columnist Andrew Bolt, a very vocal opponent of gay marriage, never descends to this, writing recently that "it offends me to hear someone say gays and lesbians are not normal".

The Fairfax press was also on the story today. 

Canon Richard Tutin from Queensland Churches Together, a body which represents 12 Christian churches including Catholics and Anglicans, said people from different churches were frustrated by the ACL.

"They totally have an agenda," he said.

"They're more interested in upholding a very, very traditional view of marriage and that's derived in their eyes from scripture and societal practice."

I hear you wondering if the ACL knows just how far it has travelled from the mainstream. The answer is that they believe they are speaking for the majority, and that those in favour of same sex marriage are a noisy minority with an evil agenda - hence Mr Wallace's reference to Goebbels. Statistically, the opposite is true. 

In February 2012, a Galaxy Poll reported 62% of voters supported gay marriage. So there it is - only 38% of Aussies agree with the ACL's position on same sex marriage...and I'd bet far fewer than that would have approved of Mr Wallace's Nazi inference. In fact, the ACL's position on gay marriage is more aligned with the fundamental Moslem position than with many Christian groups.

But remember that the ACL is a lobby group, not a church. Sure, they'd love for you to join their supporters, but their primary focus is in influencing our governments, whether that's by getting their candidates elected, or by influencing those already in parliament. For that, they need money.

Doug Pollard's blog is shining a light on the ACL executive: who are they, what are their backgrounds, and who funds them. This information isn't nearly as easy to find as it should be, given the ACL's status as a political lobby group, but Doug has learned that Goldings, a Queensland construction company, contributed in the order of six figures to ACL. Gloria Jeans, the coffee chain previously associated with Hillsong, has also donated tens of thousands of dollars to the ACL.

Jim Wallace and the other members of the ACL team probably won't be surprised to hear that there's talk on Twitter of boycotting Gloria Jeans stores to protest their support of the ACL.

Yeah,  it's been a bad week for the ACL: a frontal assault in the form on the Sunrise "I Do" campaign, Mr Wallace's cringeworthy appearance on the debate, the offensive Nazi reference, an opinion piece against them in a national newspaper, a news story in Fairfax publications about other Christians distancing themselves from the ACL, bloggers digging into their activities (including this one) and now murmurs of a boycott of one of their key donors? 

Their war might be against gays and gay rights, but the ACL should consider choosing their battles. Taking on a national television show, a magazine and experienced activist group and the weight of public opinion armed with nothing but a website and Jim Wallace was not their finest moment. 

The ACL Agenda

This morning, Sunrise hosted a short debate on same sex marriage. The participants were Dr Kerryn Phelps, a married lesbian, and Jim Wallace, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. Time constraints, and a lack of debate structure hampered the ability of either side to land a killer argument, although each had a theme. For Dr Phelps, it's all about equality. For the ACL, it's all about the children...and something entirely inappropriate about Nazis, but let's concentrate on his focus: children.

Mr Wallace failed to make any explanation as to why same sex marriage had anything to do with children, other than to suggest that all marriage is about children. That, Mr Wallace, is bollocks.

There was a graph floating around on Twitter yesterday, showing the disproportionate focus of the ACL on homosexuality. The graph illustrated that the number of anti-gay press releases and self-reported media mentions from January-June outnumbers the sum of press releases and mentions for all other topics. (I'm unsure who put this together, but whoever you are, thank you.) I'd go so far as to suggest that a large chunk of the ACL press releases and media mentions about homosexuality also make mention of children, children's rights, and protecting the children from the dangerous influences of gay people. 

So, let's take Wendy Francis's suggestion, and think of the children.

According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, children – defined as a human under the age  of 18 - have rights. The Convention of the Rights of the Child include these four core principles:

·         The right to survival and development;
·         Respect for the best interests of the child as a primary consideration;
·         The right of all children to express their views freely on all matters affecting them; and
·         The right of all children to enjoy all the rights of the CRC without discrimination of any kind.

According to a media release from Jim Wallace just last week, single and same-sex surrogacy is a gross abuse against the rights of the child.

Jim Wallace and his ACL are so completely disengaged from the real world that they themselves are the danger, as we saw during Jim's semi-coherent debate appearance this morning. Jim's a former Army Officer - he should know better than to liken his "enemies" to Nazis. But he did pivot back to his point, that it's all about children.

In fact, the ACL has an entire programme called ForKidSake dedicated to serving the best interests of Australian children.

Each of the three key recommendations from the ACL's ForKidSake campaign comes from a research project commissioned by the ACL and conducted by Professor Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at Sydney University. There is a handy link from the ForKidSake section of the ACL website to Professor Parkinson’s 126 page report, yet the ACL website includes only the summary that the ACL wants you to see. Their cherry-picked summary makes for annoying reading: it includes “Some of the research findings”, and “some significant recommendations”. Any half-awake reader would know that it was incomplete. 

"Some of the recommendations" might be good enough for the ACL, but the rest of us demand the complete picture. I have read the three recommendations published on the ACL Website, and I have read the 14 Recommendations in Professor Parkinson' Report, and I suggest that you do too. This is a solid and inclusive piece of work which emphasises the importance of family and community as they relate to the development of children, and suggests an overall responsibility is at the Federal Government level, cascading through levels of government into the community.

The report does not, however, define the ideal family. It does not exclude non-traditional families, single parent families, blended families, mixed-race families, polygamous families, 1960s hippy communes, extended families or families that include same sex parents. Equally, it doesn't shy away from exploring the higher proportion of problems encountered by children in non-traditional family structures.

I suspect the reason that Professor Parkinson has neither detailed the ideal family structure nor discussed the ACL-suggested dangers of non-traditional families is because the research doesn’t support the notion that every traditional nuclear family is better for the children that any other option. 

In fact, the Report accepts the existence and legitimacy of LGBT groups within the community as early as Recommendation 1(c).

To encourage Parents and Citizens’ Associations, community organisations such as Rotary or Lions Clubs, churches, other faith-based communities, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse organisations, gay and lesbian organisations and any other interested group to offer relationship education programs free of charge in their local community or in workplaces, or in universities, utilising trained volunteer educators, or educators paid on a sessional basis.

So sustained is the ACL's campaign against gay marriage and gay parenting, we wonder if, in ACL-World, it is better to have a perfect Mum plus Dad plus two-point-whatever kids (biological offspring of the aforementioned Mum and Dad), even if Mum drinks a bottle of vodka before breakfast, even if Dad feeds his entire income through the pokies every payday, even if the home hides domestic violence, emotional abuse, incest and worse, than to have two parents of the same sex. Yes, this is gross exaggeration, yet there are no asterisks in the ACL literature.

Still, according to last week's press release from Jim Wallace, gay parenting (and single parenting) resulting from surrogacy would be gross abuse against the rights of the child.

That kind of homophobic nonsense is simply not true, and Professor Parkinson's report did not suggest that it was.

Mr Wallace’s statement last week said:

“Evidence heard at recent enquiries and a parliamentary inquiry in Victoria into donor conception and surrogacy has shown it is harmful to children to be deliberately severed from their biological mother or father.”

This argument suggests that all surrogacy is equally detrimental to the child, due to the severing of connection to a biological parent. It's not just gays and singles. Heterosexual couples who use a surrogate face the same risks and dangers that Jim Wallace links to single and gay parents. Is that what the ACL really thinks? Professor Parkinson noted the separation as an issue in his report, yet again, did not mention gay parents specifically.

And what is this about severing relationships in the specific context of surrogacy? That’s an assumption by Mr Wallace. The non-custodial biological parent may be a treasured  member of an extended family, which would surely align with Professor Parkinson’s recommendations. 

Given the ACL's objection to abortion, where does it stand on adoption? Adoption forces separation between a child and it's biological parents. Wouldn't that be risking harm to he child? Maybe the ACL would prefer that all pregnant women just shut up and keep their babies? What if the mother is single? The ACL won't like that! The entire argument is so circular, so nonsensical, that the only solution that would be acceptable to the ACL would be for no-one to ever be pregnant outside the structure of traditional hetero-sexual monogamous marriage.

This does not reflect the reality we live in.

The ACL is an all-or-nothing political lobby groyp. Their mantra is "Won't Someone Think Of The Children?" Good question, because I can't see where the ACL places children first. It looks to me as though the ACL is using children as a convenient smokescreen to disguise their real purpose: the anti-gay agenda. 

Rainbows Over Sunrise

It's common knowledge now that Sunrise has teamed with Marie Claire and GetUp! in support of Same Sex Marriage. It's almost as well known that Australian Christian Lobby is exploding in a small fiery ball of self-righteous homophobia at the thought of a major television show supporting something they spend their entire lives fighting against.

Good on them, I say! We don't hear nearly enough from Jim Wallace, Lyle Shelton and Wendy Francis about how private, consenting relationships between two adults who happen to be of the same sex can do irrevocable ... something something ... Oh, won't somebody think of the children?

In truth, I'm in favour of looking after the children too, and I'd volunteer to babysit hoards of them before I'd let the folks from the ACL anywhere near one. There. I said it.

But back to today's ACL campaign, designed to ensure that the Governments - both State and Federal -  aren't influenced by anyone or anything other than the Christian Right, and perhaps Big Mining. That's fine; it's their job, and they do it well. Those skills should come in handy they try to talk their way through the Pearly Gates. Somehow, I think their greeting might not be what they expect.

Anyway, the ACL's website includes the following paragraphs, which I'll include here so you don't have to go there:  

That a TV current affairs show, let alone TV station, should take sides in such a highly contentious issue in the public square is disgraceful.  What it says for the respect they have for alternative opinion, even our values, is extremely disappointing and we need to register our disappointment.

This comes at a strategic time in the debate, so please spend a minute to fill out the Sunrise comments section at this link to make your comment, but please do it now 

You might:

Ask them what you are supposed to think this action means for their respect and even tolerance of your views and values on an issue that  goes to the very heart of family and the flourishing of children;

Ask why Sunrise has decided it’s a ‘human rights issue’ when the Australian Government has removed discrimination in 84 laws in 2008 and when the European Court of Human Rights ruled in March that same-sex marriage is not a human right

Register your disgust that the press, supposedly the neutral umpire and facilitator of public debate, should allow itself to be captured by the propaganda machine of the gay lobby; and

If you’re so convicted, you might advise them that you do not propose to watch the show again.

Also, please consider sending an email to Sunrise’s partners sharing your concerns about the television show. They include Purina, The Coffee Club, Accor Hotels, Myer and Jetstar.

Bully for the ACL,  who are without doubt the least Christian group of any Christian group this side of the Vatican. Remember though, they are not a Christian Church; they are a political lobby group, with all the Christian grace and generosity of spirit that you'd expect from a political lobby group. Their anti-gay stance is as steadfast as it is bewildering.

Meanwhile the rest of us are signing our petitions and sending letters of support to Sunrise and their advertisers. Thanks again to the ACL for including that list on their website, along with the helpful Sunrise Feedback link! Yes, we're that clever!

At the other end of the spectrum, the official GetUp Petition to thank Sunrise was closing in on 30,000 signatures at the time of writing this. Here's GetUp!'s blurb:  

Yesterday we announced that Sunrise are getting behind the campaign to stop marriage discrimination. This morning they woke up to a campaign backed by the Australian Christian Lobby denouncing their decision.

The Sunrise team went out on a limb and others who might be thinking about backing this campaign will be watching how this situation unfolds. Can you let the team know they have our support by adding your name to the thank you card on the left?

You know how I feel about the ACL's hate campaign against the LGBT community. Please take a look at the two perspectives above, and consider which one is deliberately divisive, which one is promoting fear and distrust, which one is more Christian.

Pants On Fire

Fox News, that fortress of objectivity, that embodiment of fairness and balance, must have been close to spontaneously combusting when President Barack Obama admitted to supporting same sex marriage. This is a big deal for Fox's conservative right wing audience, and the Fox on-air teams sang in unison of their disapproval. (Well, all except for Shep Smith, who seemed to support Obama.) 

It's a big deal for the Presidential election, too. The feeling is that by openly supporting same sex marriage, President Obama has reclaimed some of the more progressive ground from presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.  Romney's electability comes from his moderate position on a range of issues; it is expected that his moderate positions would appeal to Undecideds and conservative Democrats who've become cynical after four years of GFC.

Support of same sex marriage tends to be binary. It's yes or it's no. By grabbing that socially progressive middle ground, Obama has just forced Romney to move to the right and claim the voters opposed to same sex marriage. Across four major polls conducted this year, support for gay marriage has consistently scored higher numbers than the opposing view. It's a real point of differentiation, and it plays to the Democrats' strengths.

So was this simply fortuitous timing on Obama's part? I doubt it.

I suspect Vice President Joe Biden announced his support of same sex marriage a few days ago as part of a coordinated campaign. Biden dipped his toe in the water, found the temperature acceptable, so President Obama waded in, with only the words for me, personally to keep him safe should things turn to custard. 

Fox News presenters were strongly voicing their fair (conservative) and balanced (conservative) suspicions that the evolution of Obama's support of gay marriage lacks credibility. Over the past decade, he's been guilty of some high-speed u-turns on the issue. According to Fox, at least some of those conflicting statements must be untruthful. Politically useful lies.

Where have I heard accusations like that before? 

Could it have been right here, in Australia, where the Prime Minister has evolved from Julia to JuLIAR in the wake of some spectacularly nasty reaction to the Carbon Tax? 

Prime Minister Gillard's well publicised pre-election pledge that there would be no Carbon Tax under her government has been credited with getting the ALP just enough votes to form a minority government. Then, when a Carbon Tax was announced, the accusations were immediate and unrelenting. Political anger turned to personal abuse fuelled by Sydney shock-jock Alan Jones, and at its heart is the assumption that the Prime Minister lied to get elected.

Did Prime Minister Gillard break a pre-election promise? Absolutely.

Did Prime Minister Gillard lie to get elected? I honestly don't know.

I've never been able to swallow the JuLIAR Kool-Aid. For me, it's always seemed more plausible that Ms Gillard changed her mind. New information, a changing economic environment as the world fell over the edge into the GFC, the need to respond to the Greens' agenda, the reality of a minority government with an obstructionist opposition and a thousand other factors may have tipped the balance. 

It's entirely likely that when Ms Gillard stated that there would be no Carbon Tax introduced by her government, she believed every word of it, and believed it was the right decision. Not far down the track, she saw that a different decision was needed.  Was there a political factor to her decision? Probably. <I>She changed her mind. <i/> That's different to lying.

And what of Prime Minister Gillard’s position on same-sex marriage? She has been been over-ruled and undermined by her party. Should she ‘change her mind’? No. I disagree with her on this, but she is entitled to her opinion. If, however, her opinion genuinely changes, that’s good too.

Is Obama's evolved support for same sex marriage really what he believes, or is it cynical political manoeuvring? And if this is the way Obama's stance has evolved, will it stick, or is it subject to change? Was he lying...or has he changed his mind?

None of the answers matter. President Obama and Vice President Biden have stated their support for gay marriage. If gay marriage is a vote-changer for American voters, they now have a clear choice.

In Australia, the Carbon Tax is coming in July. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has made a ‘pledge in blood’ to repeal it, although business analysts from DeutscheBank have reported that it would take at least 2 years to effect that backpedal, and would cost billions of dollars, including compensation to companies that have invested in new technologies to avoid paying Carbon tax.

After coming to power - and it looks inevitable that he will - I wonder if Tony Abbott will decide his blood pledge to repeal the Carbon Tax is too expensive, financially or economically…and if he does, will he be accused of lying, or will be allowed to change his mind.