Mr Abbott says he will bind all Coalition MPs to vote against legal recognition of “same-sex-marriage”:

“Every single member of the Coalition went to last election saying that marriage is between one man and one woman . . . every single member”.

He insists that “we can’t be a party that says one thing before an election and does differently after.”

He is right. We already have a party which does that. We don’t need another.

* * *

Some people might argue that all politicians of every party lie and break promises.

Well it isn’t one of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Could things change?

Could Mr Abbott reach next election able to say truthfully that his party has remained true to its stated policies?

If so, he’ll have very big win.

* * *

In our culture it is well understood when lies are justified and when they are not.

Lying to the Gestapo about a Jewish friend hiding in your attic is NOT a serious sin. The Gestapo have no right to that information and are likely to use it for evil ends.

But to lie to the voting public . . . that is a serious sin.

Voters have the right to know the true intentions of political candidates. There’s no excuse for lying about a straightforward matter like marriage policy.

In this area, Mr Abbott has got it right.

The ALP has got it wrong.

Labor MPs will have a “conscience vote” re same-sex marriage.

Malcolm Turnbull wants a conscience vote for Liberal MPs as well.

But if MPs really used their conscience on this issue, wouldn’t the vote be 100 percent against and zero for?

A vote should be unnecessary.

* * *

Any party containing members willing to vote for such an extreme nonsense as same-sex marriage is a good party not to have running your country.

Perhaps better not to have any party running the country.

Ideally it doesn’t matter what party is the nominal government — so long as we don’t let them govern us.

In a decent country, the Church would be the de facto government.

* * *

If the government passes bad laws, the Church should explain why they are wrong — and the people should simply disobey.

Such a situation needs to happen.

But first the Church must pull up its socks.

If you are a Catholic who has quit over the child-abuse issue, or some other reason — please get back into gear.

The Church has a job to do.

You can help make it happen.

The governor of Wisconsin state, USA, recently made an announcement that “the Christmas Tree displayed in our state Capitol will have homemade ornaments . . . . etc.”

Horrified responses followed

“Freedom From Religion Foundation” (FFRF) called his words “rude and insensitive . . . a snub to non-Christians.”

Legal moves will possibly come next.

* * *

The FFRF refers to itself as a group of “freethinkers”

They believe in your “freedom” never to say the word Christmas in public.

Since the 1980’s, those Americans who hate the idea of “government endorsement of religion” have witch-hunted anybody saying Christmas tree . . . .

Instead of “Holiday tree” which is a permissible phrase.

So much for the status of belief in the USA.

What about Australia?

* * *

Researchers claim that only 40 percent of Australians now identify as Christians.

About 10 percent identify themselves with other religions.

The rest don’t believe in anything much.

20 percent call themselves “spiritual” but not “religious”.

We mostly want to feel good and — to some that way inclined — religion and/or spirituality can be a convenient feelgood.

Are we all — both religious and un-religious – alike primarily committed to self-fulfilment, self-esteem and self-worship?

Only the colour of the tinsel varying?

(stats from: OliveTree Media Research, 22 November 2011)

The Australian Labor Party now officially supports legalisation of “same-sex marriage”.

Activist, Alex Greenaway, calls it “a clear message . . . that it’s time to provide equality for all Australians”.

Which is manifest nonsense.

All Australians are not equal.

Those who break the law are put in prison. That is not treating them as equals.

The question that homosexual activists don’t want to face is whether homosexual acts are harmful enough to warrant the law prohibiting them.

* * *

Homosexually-active persons are not normal.

They know they are not normal.

They know it won’t be easy to suppress their abnormal activities.

For this very reason, the law should encourage, pressure, and persuade them to give them up.

Even more important for young persons who are teetering on the brink of declaring themselves homosexuals . . . .

To give them some incentive to think again . . . .

There are other reasons to oppose legalised homosexual acts — based on disease prevention, child protection etc.

But those mentioned above are basic.

* * *

If we have equal regard for persons afflicted with homosexual tendencies, then we must do all we can to help them.

They aren’t being helped by telling them, yes, your unnatural acts are all you are good for – we’ll leave you to damage yourselves because we don’t care about you . . . .

If we have a real regard for them, we’ll tell them, yes, it is unfortunate that you are this way — but we’ll do everything possible to help you live a normal lifestyle.

Last Monday, the Australian federal parliament passed world-first laws forcing all cigarettes to be sold in plain (olive-green) packs.

Within one hour, the Philip Morris Company began legal proceedings against the government threatening to cost “billions of dollars”.

They claim that the new laws breach constitute “stealing” (i.e. devaluing) their brands under international business law.

* * *

Smoking kills up to half of the people who smoke — worldwide, nearly six million people each year.

This is a life-and-death struggle.

Manufacturers and sellers of tobacco products are serial killers.

Governments should treat them as such . . . .

* * *

Adjusting Australia’s laws so that anybody supplying anybody with a tobacco-product is punishable under attempted murder legislation . . . .

With steep penalties . . . .

If a few CEO’s or others in the supply-chain were gaoled for a few years, might that hasten the end of the tobacco industry?

Source of statistics: (www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/index.html)

About 5000 people recently participated in a gambling survey on the website of federal opposition front-bencher, Malcolm Turnbull

More than 60 percent said they support laws compelling gamblers using “high-intensity” machines (those accepting $10 dollar bets) to set a limit on their losses before starting to play.

Australia has 200,000 high-intensity poker machines in operation.

Gamblers routinely lose about $1200 per hour on such machines.

They should be banned.

* * *

There is a lot to be said for also banning “low-intensity”,$1-limit, poker machines as well.

Even on “low-intensity” pokies, a patron can lose $120 per hour.

For many, that is a lot of money.

Do it a couple of times a week and the cash for paying bills and feeding the family is gone.