Anti-marriage campaign in symbolic backdown
An anti-gay marriage group has had to remove two petitions from its website after it used Australia’s Commonwealth Coat of Arms without permission.
The secretive group – Marriage Is – has launched a campaign to encourage opponents of marriage equality to lobby MPs and Senators in the lead up to August 24, when parliamentarians are due to report back on their consultations with constituents on the issue.
The group claims to be unaffiliated with any religion and is calling on, “all members of any religion, or no religion, to join with us in upholding marriage as the unique union of man and woman.”
Marriage Is states that its membership consists of “young volunteers from around Australia who care about the future of marriage in our country”.
The group removed two petitions from its website which used the Commonwealth Coat of Arms in a way that made them appear to be official documents after the Star Observer pointed out that this was potentially in breach of the Trade Practices Act, the Trade Marks Act or the Federal Criminal Code Act.
Permission to use the Coat of Arms must be granted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The Star Observer has obtained copies of another petition by the Australian Family Association which uses the Commonwealth Coat of Arms in the same way.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet confirmed that neither organisation sought permission to use the coat of arms, and that they would have been denied it had they asked.
Marriage Is’s website is registered with a Utah based company which conceals the identity of the website’s owners, and nearly all the material on it appears to be based on that produced by a small group of conservative US think tanks including the American Principles Project and the Institute for American Vales.
The group claims same-sex marriage could result in churches having tax exemptions removed for not renting out properties for same-sex marriages, teachers being forced to teach kids about same-sex relationships, and parents not being able to decide what their children learn.
In Australia, state anti-discrimination laws mean that churches and the businesses they own may already legally discriminate on grounds of sexuality and teachers are required to teach what is laid out in the syllabus.
No one from Marriage Is would respond to questions from the Star Observer.
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) campaign director Rodney Croome (pictured) said AME had repeatedly asked all groups involved in the debate to conduct themselves in a respectful and mature manner.
“This means to be upfront about who they represent, not to indulge in hyperbole or scare tactics, and not to misrepresent themselves or the issue,” Croome said.
“’Marriage Is’ seems to be violating all the rules of respectful, civil debate so it’s hard to take its contribution seriously.”
For one, no one has the right to tell anyone that they can’t get married, it’s unconstitutional! For two, what, exactly, is so “unique about the union of a man and a woman”? From what I’ve seen they end either one of two ways, in divorce, or in the ground! Which, I’m not taking away from the fact that it is beautiful for any two people to spend their lives together, it’s actually quite amazing, but to say it’s unique…Eeeehhhh, not so much! Finally, parents really don’t have much say in what their kids learn in public schools, anyway! Either older kids are teaching them things that they shouldn’t be learning, or the school has a book about it in the library and they learn it on their own! If parents are that concerned about what their kids are learning, home school them, or send them to private school, but don’t use it as an excuse to keep homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals! I, for one, have no plans on marrying a man or a woman, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want my friends and family to have that chance! Thank you for hearing my side! Trista
I think it is time the Australian Family Association was shut down for good.
I would not go around asking for money using a logo of the police, it could wrongly imply I have an association with them. I would also not pretend to be a doctor with a University falsified certificate, as all these things apart from being morally wrong carry serious convictions and jail terms.
I wonder if in addition to the criminal prosecution, the Trade Practices Act might have a breach, as I would have thought it is deceptive conduct using the Coat of Arms while selling tickets to the Ant-Marriage rally they are having in Canberra shortly. It could imply for instance, that their commercial operations are seen as part of and endorsed by the Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Family Association involving itself fraud and in serious criminal activity is of no surprise to me.