The 'Neoz Cons' against same-sex marriage

By | | comments |

Contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence explores the nether regions of the anti same-sex marriage debate.

HAS ERIC ABETZ had anal sex with a woman? Fair question. 

Has his fellow senator Cory Bernardi had anal sex with a woman? And what about other Coalition pollies like Tony Abbott?  Kevin Andrews? Andrew Broad? George Christensen? 

What's that got to do with the vexing debate on same-sex marriage? Everything.

I was going to include Attorney-General George Brandis in the pollie quiz, but after his anal retentive pettyfogging and obfuscation on the definition of the word "consultation" before the senate committee hearing last week, he is clearly transitioning into an anal expulsive. 

Besides, I just couldn't do it to our dear readers. Calling upon the imagination to conjure up the spectre of George fossicking about for a "G spot" is just too horrid to contemplate; notwithstanding the other politicians already mentioned. So don't read this article more than once. It could put you off sex for ever.


At first blush, a seemingly prurient interest in the sexual proclivities and habits of our male politicians, in particular, may appear unwarranted. but it is pertinent when examining the sometimes hysterical and historical pathology of homophobia.

Any cruel political, social, religious, legal and cultural abuse of dialects of sexual gender and love, other than those deemed "normal" by abnormal self-appointed judges, arbiters and god-botherers, wears a stained raincoat of hypocrisy and is unquestionably an incursion upon human rights.

It is inevitable that our politicians are shaped by personal prejudice, as are we all. 

But alas, their personal ethics and parliamentary vote is loyal not to themselves or we people but to religious fundamentalists, lobbyists and dangerous factional cabals within the old parties that dictate intractable policy, taking decision-making out of the hands and in this case the loins of the elected member.


Consider the likes of Senator Penny Wong and PM Turnbull. At various times, each have subjugated their public declarations in favour of marriage equality for the sake of political expediency acquiescing to the hardcore "neoz" conservative movement within and without their respective parties. The latter clearly maintains close links with U.S. and UK neocons, and mimics their verballing and literature.

Even greater than Wong and Turnbull's betrayal of their own status and the people, was that of then Prime Minister Julia Gillard's "No" vote in the House of Representatives, four years ago, against a same-sex marriage private members' bill, originally introduced in 2010 by Adam Bandt, Greens MP for Melbourne. but amended by Labor Party backbencher Stephen Jones, now shadow minister for regional services, territories and local government.

Ms Gillard, now a private citizen and chair of the Global Partnership for Education, and in great demand on the global speakers' circuit, has since altered her view and now supports marriage equality.

Which politicians voted for and against the bill is worth revisiting, and it should be noted that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten voted in favour, as did current Deputy Tanya Plibersek and potential leader Anthony “Albo” Albanese.


I couldn't find the name of the  Attorney-General George Brandis in either columns of the "for" and "against".

It seems he was curiously absent. 

Maybe then, as now, a “dog on a lead" ate his homework. On the rare two occasions he was present, he voted against same-sex issues. (Check out the 'They Vote For You' website.)

And what's more, he's been curiously absent to vote on same-sex issues on about nine other occasions. Weird huh? It would have stood him in good stead. Especially since he's had more than a hand in the wording of the plebiscite'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?'

Bill Shorten has put an end to that devious plan fuelled by unsame-sex marriage devotees, much to Turnbull's relief, because he doesn't want former PM Tony Abbott's plebiscite either.  

Australia can't afford to squander a needless estimated $525 million on such nonsense.


We plebs don't want a plebiscite. Most Australians want parliamentarians to have a free vote on same-sex marriage, unshackled by the influence of neoz cons both within and without the parties. 

We know that the bungling Brandis was as furious with Shorten as he is with Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson's revelations at the hearing. 

The party en bloc vote corrupts the authenticity and integrity of the individual parliamentary vote.

All votes should be a conscience vote.   


Neoz cons and their enthralled politicians have become bum boys of the anti same-sex marriage movement.

Religion may inform, but surely not dictate, political outcomes. 

The oiled up sexual jihadists against marriage equality are so often self-righteous bigots. 

These neozis perpetuate a fear and loathing of lovemaking, lust and sexual congress of anything other than the "missionary position" — the very term rooted, if you forgive the pun, in religious and colonial paternalism.


More importantly, we cannot subject our children of varying and formative sexuality to the dangers both physical and psychological of the vile bilge and homophobic toxic invective that so often spews from the orifices of those adults who identify as pious sanctimonious Abrahamic "people of the book" — who subscribe to the Judeo Christian Islamic traditions, aided and abetted by those of other faiths, as well as by those who are regarded as infidels by all but who still espouse moral supremacy and fraternity when it comes to gay marriage and equal rights.

In various ways and measure, some of these fundamentalists who claim religious superiority and may even be at war with one another, are as one with their jealous counterparts when it comes to homosexuality and gay rights. Thousands of homosexuals still get murdered in tortuous and horrifying fashion as we have witnessed — and so often in the name of falsehood and false gods.

These terrors perversely add to the frightening and global burgeoning of the far right brigades — so often religious zealots, elitists and avowed patriots to misrepresented religions and already bloodstained flags, beating the hollow and hallowed drums of war, fuelling hatred, bigotry, racism and always, always, demonizing "the other" who in reality, is me. Or you.

I am not alone in becoming increasingly irritated and impatient with the abject, often patriarchal and sexist, lies and hyperbole embedded in such anthropological immaturity.

Let's stop pussyfooting around and get to the bottom of this.


It is a fact that one of the prime pillars of despisement concerning homosexuality, other sexual couplings, groupings, preferences and gender identification, involves the "abomination" of  'men using other men as women'. Never mind when men use women as women. 

In plainspeak, men having sex with other men. 

This subtext translates to an abomination of male "anal intercourse". LOL.  

There is the taboo aspect of anal intercourse; inserting the penis into where faeces is discharged — l'ecole ecoli

As if anal sex is not practised by heterosexuals. Get real.

As if anal sex is not practised as a form of birth control. 

As if men throughout the centuries, whether white or black and all shades of the skin and sexual rainbow, have never penetrated one another anally.

As if babies, girls, women babies, boys and men have not been anally raped by men throughout the ages. And continue to be so. Vaginal and anal rape, either by penis or implements, continue to be a merciless and integral tool of war. And yes, we know women rape too.


As if women have not much enjoyed or put up with, as the case may be, anal intercourse with men. 

The noise you can hear in the background is the collective ululating, guffaws and laughter of women throughout the world, at the disengenuous hypocrisy and duplicity that inhabits the same-sex marriage debate and its sly implication that heterosexual sexual habits exclude anal intercourse. 

Of course, doing "it" with women isn't much counted or recounted. It is even difficult finding reliable figures on the percentage of anal rape compared with vaginal rape.

It beggars belief that it was Henry VIII, the serial matrimonialist and wife killer who signed the Buggery Act 1533, defining anal sex as sex between men and zoophilia as punishable by death. 

Much of our precious world is under seige from natural and human-made cataclysm and it is tragic that we seem so predisposed towards sexual bigotry and inhuman rites. 

And the Hate that dares to speak its name.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Monthly Donation


Single Donation


Support fearless journalism. Subscribe to IA for as little as $5 a month.

Recent articles by Tess Lawrence
#7 TOP STORY OF 2021: The night Porter and allegations of rape

The horrifying rape allegations against Christian Porter proved to one of the ...  
The night Porter and allegation of rape

Attorney-General Christian Porter deserves the backlash received from the public ...  
Trump impeachment: He's so bad they did it twice

The destruction of democracy in the Capitol on January 6, live-streamed by proud ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support IAIndependent Australia

Subscribe to IA and investigate Australia today.

Close Subscribe Donate