Back on Court
In reference to the written and verbal attack on Margaret Court recently.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Its not trendy in this day and age to say nay and God help anyone who is brave enough to even mention God's name for they will surely be shot down in flames for upholding his law on the subject in question.
Margaret gave her view (with so called freedom of speech) in a so called democratic society.
Now such is not the done thing for the silenced (majority) only, the minority and their never ending causes, are permitted a voice (it would seem).
Its always interesting as to how the celebrity considered somebodies in this case sporting elite troops come out on the defence as thought their celebrity status is somehow going to magically alter the status quo of the views held by those who have been silenced.
Because they hold an opposite view and will not fall into line to pacify these minorities and their causes they are branded racists, bigots and homophobics.
Our governments past and present have been far too lenient in allowing these derogative words to be so loosely used by these groups every time they can't get their own way with those who appose their views and who choose not to condone impropriety called progress.
Sam Stozer jumped on the progressive bandwagon and told the world she wouldn't play tennis at the Margaret Court Arena unless its name was changed to Evonne Goolagong Arena.
What a remark.
Now having watched Evonne play tennis for her country she hardly warrants a secondhand thought or someone elses' given (for merit) Arena but rather one of her own.
Stozer's remarks were an insult to both these remarkable tennis players in their own right.
Do we really care about Stozer's views?
I certainly don't.
Martina Navratilova, a super duper tennis player, a gay woman whose life style is accepted by secular society was allowed to express her view in numerous newspapers without having strips torn off her for doing so as though she had no right to her view.
Yet Margaret's view was shot down in flames because it was based on God's authoritative and therefore differed from the cause being peddled.
It reminds one of that someone over three thousand years ago who also made a stand for what He considered to be right from wrong.
It too was shot down in flames verbally abused, spat on, called names and belted beyond recognition.
They even went so far as to crucify Him because He made a stand for what was right in God's sight.
The message delivered back then was knocked down the same as it is today.
Its the only way to do what is right and take it to the people via a referendum.
Our constitutional laws cannot be overruled on this issue of gay marriage.
Its also not clever to try to force the people to accept something they do not approve of for it just makes them all the more determined to make a stand against it which has been evident and ongoing.
A plebiscite is not legally binding and therefore a waste of time and taxpayers money.
Members of parliament whether gay or supportive do not have the legal right of authority (in accordance with our constitutional laws) to overrule them by making this decision in parliament themselves.
The only ones who can are the people via a referendum.
If 68 per cent (as is claimed) are in favour put to to the test at the next Federal election.
Either God's will on which our constitutional laws and Christian values are based and followed by a predominately Christian nation will prevail or secular society will deliver.
Yvonne Rance, Griffith.