In the past year, several anti-marriage equality groups have tried to paint themselves as “grassroots” movements, but evidence suggests they are getting significant assistance from and have ties to the Australian Christian Lobby.
When it launched last year, Marriage Alliance described itself as “a grassroots movement” to “educate Australians” about same-sex marriage. When it was pointed out that the organisation’s spokesperson and several key members had ties to the Liberal Party, its grassroots claim quickly fell apart. A new player in June this year, “You’re Teaching Our Children What?” also describes itself as a “grassroots movement” of concerned mothers opposed to Safe Schools. But evidence suggests that the groups are collaborating, if not directly linked.
It starts with a simple website company: Cornerstone Web Solutions. This company, based in North Sydney, hosts content for the dozens of websites owned by the Australian Christian Lobby. Cornerstone’s founder, Scott Matthew, is Facebook friends with more than a dozen ACL staff, including managing director Lyle Shelton, Wendy Francis, Jim Wallace and former staffer Martyn Iles. The group has been busy buying up more than 100 domains over the past few years. Most notably the ACL owns “whatisthemarriageact.com” and a number of variations on that, along with “aclwatch”, as a defensive purchase against people who might fact-check the organisation.
Matthew has been doing work for the ACL for more than a decade. He was listed as technical support for the ACL webcast of the Howard/Rudd talks in front of Christians in 2007, and his previous business, Show The World, provided website design to the ACL as early as 2004.
Curiously, the company also hosts or has hosted services for other anti-same sex marriage groups including Australian Marriage Forum, Marriage Alliance, a Greek Orthodox website against same-sex marriage, and the “You’re Teaching Our Children What?” website. All of the websites were hosted in the same IP address range owned by Cornerstone in Macquarie Telecom’s data centre in Sydney.
Some of the groups, however, such as Marriage Alliance and Australian Marriage Forum began shifting their services away from Cornerstone when people began investigating the links between the groups. When Fairfax reported that Marriage Forum’s website was registered in Shelton’s name, the organisation moved its .org website to Amazon and changed the registrant to David van Gend, but the .org.au site remains on Cornerstone’s servers.
Marriage Alliance recently shifted the responsibility for its services to a company linked to the United States anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage.
The links go further than just a single Christian-affiliated hosting company, however.
The arrival of the “You’re Teaching Our Children What?” group was splashed in the The Daily Telegraph, and right wing columnist Miranda Devine quotes “Sophie” as “one of 10 mothers” involved and says “Sophie” wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group, titled “You’re Teaching Our Children What?” uses a name similar to the headline of an article by Shelton just weeks before and is hosted by the same website host used by the ACL. Shelton tweeted a link to the website just over a week before Devine’s article appeared.
Is “Sophie” Sophie York, the spokesperson for Marriage Alliance and Liberal Party campaigner? Sophie York has been featured on the Greek Orthodox website, and the same content can be found cross-posted on the You’re Teaching Our Children What? website. She denies that she is Devine’s inspiration.
Devine also gave a personal reference to York, a former Liberal candidate, describing York as having “a strong moral compass, and her beliefs are rooted in family and community”.
We asked Marriage Alliance and “You’re Teaching Our Children What?”, as well as Devine about the link, but we did not hear back. We also asked Cornerstone Web Solutions about their involvement with the ACL and the other groups but also did not hear back.
Marriage Alliance describes itself as “an independent alliance bringing together individuals and organisations”, suggesting it might become the umbrella group for the various anti-marriage equality groups, and take the leading role in the No case during the upcoming plebiscite debate, should the plebiscite legislation pass.
This week The Australian Christian Lobby, Australian Marriage Forum, Marriage Alliance and the Australian Family Association have all lent their support to the launch of anti-gay doctor David van Gend’s book, Stealing from a Child. Van Gend — who recently alleged that equalising age of consent laws in Queensland between gay people and straight people would lead to old gay men preying on school boys — makes his case against marriage equality in the book.
rong moral compass, and her beliefs are rooted
i bet you’re going to say i have selectively quoted what you wrote, that is true, as is the sentence as i have “discovered” in your words
Shades of the Tea Party and the Koch(head) brothers. Just what we would expect from these god botherers.
The longer this debate goes on, the harder it is to distinguish the narcissistic, sneering condescension of the (I guess) old, white, straight opponents of marriage equality from the narcissistic, sneering condescension of the (I guess) young, bent, rainbow proponents of it.
If this issue hadn’t existed then both rabid sides would have had to invent it, to justify their existence. Oh wait. It didn’t, and they have.
If this issue hadn’t existed then both rabid sides would have had to invent it, to justify their existence. Oh wait. It didn’t, and they have.
You might have a point if Howard hadn’t actually created the problem when he changed the Marriage Act (somehow, without a plebiscite).
Like I said Doc, it takes two to tango. I have NK idea on earth why the LGBTIQETC lobby gives a remote bugger if some churchman/polly says they ‘can’t’ get married.
The only remotely dignified response is to laugh politely, step around them, and get married.
All this debate is doing is handing authority and legitimacy to the state/church. The only reason you’d do it is if you WANT to maintain an artificial exceptionalist-outsider status. Which is of course the core (paradoxical) point of identity politics transgression/diffetentiation. Crackpots like the ACL are the LGBTQI gang’s most important political definers. Without them they’d be…well, what. Happy? Content to be equal? Quiet about where they like to put their bits, at long last?
But shhh. We’re not supposed to mention that, are we.
Like I said Doc, it takes two to tango.
Yeah. You know, like theft or rape. If those damn victims would just stop being robbed and assaulted those problems wouldn’t exist !
I have NK idea on earth why the LGBTIQETC lobby gives a remote bugger if some churchman/polly says they ‘can’t’ get married.
It’s because – and you might want to sit down before reading further because I suspect this might come as quite a shock – marriage is a LEGAL STATE. So when the law – as defined by “some polly” – says homosexuals can’t get married, they can’t.
It’s kind of like how a while back there used to be some laws, in some countries, that specifically targeted or excluded people based on the colour of their skin. People of that particular skin colour “gave a remote bugger” because if they didn’t, they were liable to find themselves thrown in gaol, or worse.
The only remotely dignified response is to laugh politely, step around them, and get married.
That’s kind of like saying, when you tell me I can’t take your stuff because it belongs to you, it’s OK for me to laugh politely, step around you, and just take it anyway. Because, you know, recognising silly laws defining property rights just hands authority and legitimacy to the state, right ?
Which is of course the core (paradoxical) point of identity politics transgression/diffetentiation. Crackpots like the ACL are the LGBTQI gang’s most important political definers. Without them they’d be…well, what. Happy? Content to be equal?
Yes, I’m sure you thought opposition to apartheid was trendy identity politics as well, but that doesn’t change the facts about persecution and oppression.
Even without the ACL they still wouldn’t be equal before the current law because the current law excludes them. That’s, kind of, THE WHOLE POINT.
No it doesn’t. Not in any way remotely commensurate with the level of hatred and hysteria being spat about those claiming to be liberal, inclusive and compassionate. But hey – thanks Doc Smithy, for making my point better than I ever could.
And to compare the struggle against apartheid with the struggle for marriage equality is to advance beyond merely hilarious first world narcissism into truly repulsive self-importance.
No it doesn’t.
Context. What doesn’t what ?
Not in any way remotely commensurate with the level of hatred and hysteria being spat about those claiming to be liberal, inclusive and compassionate.
I am familiar with the hatred and hysteria being spat about by Bernadi, the ACL, and their ilk.
I am less familiar with hatred and hysteria being spat about by marriage equality advocates – where might one find some ? Though, being on the side of the persecuted, rather than the persecutor, they may actually have some justification for some agitation.
And to compare the struggle against apartheid with the struggle for marriage equality is to advance beyond merely hilarious first world narcissism into truly repulsive self-importance.
I was not comparing them, merely pointing out that by your “it takes two to tango” logic, it was also a matter of identity politics.
The marriage act discriminates against homosexuals. This is not only trivially demonstrable, but proudly supported by opponents of marriage equality. Why are you trying to argue otherwise ?
“The only remotely dignified response is to laugh politely, step around them, and get married. ” You might have missed it but the Federal government, since 2004, defines via statute who may and may not get married.
Instead of repeating the faux politics that the Mudrake press are pushing and that the ACL are using for camouflage (the pejorative-du-jour ‘identity politics’), perhaps you might concentrate on the actual issue… equal access to the law for all citizens.
The State has offered a fast and democratic path to equality. The plebiscite was utterly uncontroversial until it was made so by factional bloody mindedness and contrived gripes.
If you want marriage equality I’m all for it. There’s the plebiscite: take it. Nothing’s ever perfect in political change. The indigenous lobbies would kill for the kind of political lever being handed to you. Not to mention the overwhelming majority goodwill.
Bit of you just want to have a fight with a few sad old churchmen for a fight’s sake…then fine, fill your boots. I don’t have a dog in that fight. Just stop pretending it’s about oppression, exclusion etc.
The State has offered a fast and democratic path to equality. The plebiscite was utterly uncontroversial until it was made so by factional bloody mindedness and contrived gripes.
False.
Bit of you just want to have a fight with a few sad old churchmen for a fight’s sake…then fine, fill your boots.
No, that’s you projecting. Actual and anachronistic discrimination within the law exists and should be removed, as it is elsewhere when encountered.
The only reason this is an issue at all is because Howard changed the Marriage Act to pander to the religious zealots in his party, followed by Abbot similarly pandering with his absurd and insulting plebiscite idea. Worth noting in context, is that not only did Howard not need to seek any “democratic” approval for his actions, but a far greater change to the “institution” of marriage a couple of decades earlier – the no-fault divorce – likewise did not require any such foolishness.
So, it is quite clear that there is no moral, ethical, or legal need to waste time and money on a plebiscite (ignoring for a minute the abhorrent idea of a plebiscite over something as foundational to modern society as equality before the law), which in practical terms delivers nothing more than a properly run opinion poll.
The whole thing could be literally done and dusted in an afternoon. The ONLY reason it is being dragged out is because same-sex marriage opponents are giving their supporters in Government playing politics the opportunity to distract from real and serious issues facing the country (which we, most assuredly, will not get a “democratic” say in).
I don’t have a dog in that fight. Just stop pretending it’s about oppression, exclusion etc.
There’s no pretending. The law explicitly excludes homosexuals from being married and was specifically changed by Howard to do so.
It would be a nice change if Malcolm Turnbull climbed out of bed with all the feather-headed, nineteenth century followers of the American Christian Lobby, and into the bigger bed of running the country which was daft enough to elect him. Nothing good was ever achieved by cat’s paws Malcolm.
It would be a nice change if Malcolm Turnbull climbed out of bed with all the feather-headed, nineteenth century followers of the American Christian Lobby, and into the bigger bed of running the country which was daft enough to elect him. Nothing good was ever achieved by cat’s paws Malcolm. (A cat’s paw)
Your comment was worth repeating Venise – they are a mean and selfish bunch these religious extremists… Malcolm should just piss them all off and get on with trying to run the country. You would hope there were half a dozen decent minded people on the government benches who would cross the floor and get this issue dealt with properly and quickly, but alas there are none such…..
Fran Kelly on ABC RN completely stuffed up her interview with Freydenberg this morning. Having raised the point of the plebiscite, she let him rant on, but did not ask the point of a non binding vote. Crap.