B.P. Terpstra
The Australian-based Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the “world’s oldest free market think tank” has come under criticism, for its activist-first positions on freedom.
Over at Right Pulse, for example, we read, “The IPA is pushing the homosexual marriage bandwagon, and a long wagon it has become: human rights lawyers, celebrities, publicity seekers, other rent-seekers, anyone with an anti-freedom axe to grind, etc…”
It doesn’t make sense. Aren’t there enough fatherless and motherless families, without creating and/or blessing more?
Right Pulse challenges, the IPA and its employee Tim Wilson’s pro-gay marriage thinking, as well. “Here in Australia, many faith based adoption agencies have already closed down under threats from state Administrative Tribunals dictating to religious organisations what their doctrines mean as a way to get around religious sensibility clauses in anti-discrimination legislation.”
One conclusion, “Seemingly the IPA has signed up for this extreme form of nanny state intervention – in the interests of anti-discrimination of course.”
Put another way, it appears as though the rights of pro-gay marriage activists are more valuable than the rights of Christians, children, and so on. And, I stupidly assumed the libertarian-Left respected Muslims too.
Groupthink
For the record, I’ve praised and criticized the IPA before, because I don’t subscribe to groupthink. Also, for the record, I’m a big fan of Tim Wilson, so my criticisms of his arguments shouldn’t be taken in the wrong spirit. It’s just that I detest political correctness.
Moreover, I’d like to know why there’s a reluctance to debate this issue freely, an important issue. I mean, does “freedom” now suppress debate for Newspeak? I read about this in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Take John Heard’s revealing 2007 opinion piece, “Leave wedded bliss to those who can make babies,” in The Australian. “Gay marriage isn’t for conservatives and it’s not for most homosexuals either,” he argues.
The same-sex attracted writer posits, “Contrary to what left-wing activists have been invited to claim, no serious conservative should argue for gay marriage. To start with, private arrangements regarding shared resources and property should not be surrendered to a nanny state. Despite the window-dressing, ostensibly right-wing arguments for gay marriage usually reveal a big government, welfare-state bias.”
It’s an argument the IPA seems closed to, alas. Indeed, when Heard writes about an “undeclared pro-gay marriage push operating out of the offices of the Institute of Public Affairs” he is writing from experience.
“First, there was a pro-gay marriage piece featured in the December edition of the IPA Review. This did not stand alone. On these pages last week Tim Wilson, a researcher with the IPA, also argued for equal recognition for same-sex couples. That is shorthand for gay marriage.”
Moreover: “Then, an anti-gay-marriage piece I’d drafted, and later extended at the editor's request, was dumped at the very last minute from the IPA Review because it was apparently too long.”
Funnily, it sounds like the Orwellian way “our” Australian Broadcasting Corporation treated one of my pieces.
Wilson
Still, in 2011, we have this bizarre situation: some IPA suits oppose Newspeak, when it comes to “carbon pollution” – but marriage isn’t worth protecting when the language police come.
As well, Wilson admits, “The significant decline of marriage shouldn’t come as a surprise. The creation of legally comparable de facto relationship recognition undermined marriage’s cultural role as the determiner of an established relationship.”
So, conservatives were right to argue that “comparable de facto relationship recognition” did undermine marriage, but they’re wrong now?
I’d also add that Australia’s expressive divorce revolution undermined marriage. Needless to say, the conservatives were right in both cases.
Make that three. They’re right about the dangers pertaining to “gay marriage” Newspeak, Newspeak adopted by the IPA.
Also of concern, Wilson showcases fake polling to sell his boutique argument for redefining marriage, when he states, “Instead reform increasingly appears inevitable, with polls finding three-quarters of Australians across all age groups believe marriage will eventually be extended to same-sex couples. The same level of support for reform exists among younger Australians.”
Are we to be guided by made-for-gay-activist-groupthink polling, with lead questions, over election results?
Additionally, Australians were once allegedly for carbon taxes, and teens grow up.
Question
Wilson’s other made-for-Hollywood arguments wouldn’t pass one basic history test.
“My guess is that if gay marriage comes, polygamy will eventually follow. If it does, American life will take a giant step towards the restless and unhappy hedonism that characterized the Roman Empire,” wrote Manuel Lopez, a self-identified gay graduate of Harvard Law School in 2005. “Gay marriage by itself would be a smaller step in the same direction” (Good Society Journal, 2005, Vol. 14 Issue 1/2, p. 6).
In Canada, where Newspeak was adopted, polygamy is already on the agenda. Therefore, I’ll repeat: Question the IPA’s adults-first Newspeak.