The Pickering Post
Friday, 14th December 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


The ever opportunistic Mr Bill Shorten wants to change the Marriage Act to replace the words, “MAN AND WOMAN” and “HUSBAND AND WIFE” with, “TWO PEOPLE”. That doesn’t sound like “marriage equality” to me, it sounds more like “A Marriage Act hijack”.

Now we all know that the radical homosexual lobby is not short of a quid, nor is it shy in shoving its lifestyle up our noses but this is heading for trouble with Shorten, who is trying to stave off a National Conference shit fight next month, in the vanguard.

So, let’s put this in perspective, those who are sexually confused among us probably number about what? I’m only guessing here, but let’s say, aw, um, about the same number as another ideologically confused group who live among us. Muslims!

Okay, so I don’t know the exact percentages, but I DO know that the vast majority, well over 95% of us, aren’t Muslim and we aren’t sexually confused. But we are happy to accept the Muslim minority who accepts and respects our long-held customs and we are happy to accept the sexually confused minority who agrees to do the same.

But we, the long-suffering majority, refuse to have Shariah Law imposed on us to satisfy a noisy, but very small minority and we should also refuse to have our Marriage Act bastardised to satisfy another noisy, but very small minority.

Of course the loony Left will claim I am calling homosexuals Islamic terrorists. That’s a given, but nope, I’m not, I am saying these minority groups need to pull their bloody heads in. These sexually confused radicals don’t want equality, they want primacy... they want to take our Marriage Act, tear it to bits and replace it with words that will apply to homosexuals!

Any reasonable sexually confused person would ask for an alternative pledge to be incorporated into the existing legislation but oh no, not the mad Left, they want the “man, woman, husband, wife” references abolished altogether!

Gay Liberal Senator, Dean Smith, said this week that, "I have always been distrustful of the Left on this issue and now my personal fears have been realised".

So who is pushing for this outrageous crap falsely described as “marriage equality”? Plibersek and the Greens’ Hanson-Young of course, and Shorten... but we already know Shorten will hop on any popular bus going to anywhere.

And as the homosexual lobby is firmly embedded in the Left of politics, he will have the undying support of Fairfax and the ABC in cementing his constituency.

Plibersek and Jenny Macklin are behind Labor’s push to have a binding vote on same sex marriage while Shorten is hectoring Abbott to have a conscience vote. WTF? So Labor insists on a binding vote for Labor but a conscience vote for the Coalition?

That sounds fair, eh? But the fact is that a binding Coalition vote against the change means that Bill’s bill will fail. But it’s highly likely to fail anyway.

And so it bloody-well should.



After half a century of fruitful hetero marriage I'm insulted that I'm now to be equated with homo pairs having the same status. I'm a wife to a man. For heavens sake lets give these like to like couples an Act of their own, not allow them to hitch on to or alter our precious Marriage Act.! I will vote NO, No, NO if it ever gets to a referendum.

Beware of what? They rule supreme. There is nobody to challenge them and make them out for the idiots they are from conservative side of Government.

I was asked the other day by my grandchilden where babies come from.I felt like telling them that they don't come from a man's bum, or sperm to the female productive system by a fellow females mouth, I refrained from indulging this information.
"Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by [ Jewish ] lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) ...................."

Perhaps this is why shortON MEMORY is introducing the bill.

Great diversion shortON MEMORY. We have a deficit that everybody is being punished for because of you and your useless government. But let's get our priorities right. Same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should tax them to the extent that a marriage licence will cost enough to pay at least have the debt you useless imbecile has placed us in.

So what are the going to do about the Family Law Act? That's been pretty much written around the idea of the conventional idea of marriage... And where's the equality when de factos will still be legally regarded as not of equal status as a legally married couple. Married people just have to produce the piece of paper to prove it. De factos must suffer the indignity of being quizzed about their sex lives to 'establish that there is a relationship'. Seems to me that Marriage Equality likes bang on about society's tolerance and acceptance, but stop well short of making community consensus on of the grounds for recognizing a committed, enduring and exclusive relationship between 'two people', (like they do for proving Aboriginality). Wonder why that is?

If the ALP get their Homosexual amendment to the marriage act from Man & Woman to Two People. That would allow brother and sister. father and daughter...And the flood gates have opened.

Sad ! Very sad !! How the minorities get to 'bugger' may things! Can we say Australia is now 'buggered'?

I get a bit confused when I often see one of the supposed 'same sex' couples dressed as a man and the other one seemingly 'the softer female'?

Does this mean that many of the hetero women of Oz who really like 'it' as 'Old Fashioned way' ...will now be left frustrated ?

Wonder what the 'bi-sexual' people of Australia think about this?

Wonder what the many hetero women of Australia think about this ?

Plibersek’s Deviant Marriage Bill fails to protect children
June 1, 2015

Labor’s informal leader Tanya Plibersek today got her puppet Bill to introduce her marriage equality bill to our national parliament. It proposes redefining the institution of marriage by replacing the words “man and woman” with the term “two people” to define who can be legally married.

Two people? Any two people?

It is a vague slippery slope, so opening the way for not only homosexual (gay and lesbian) marriage, but transvestite marriage, incest marriage and pedophile marriage, child marriage, arranged and forced marriage. Indeed, why not Muslim polygamy so as not to discriminate against foreign multicultural values?

Two people means just that – any two people


Your right,Larry.If 98% of us want to call a joining of a man and a woman a "marriage" then that's it.If two men want to "join together" call it something else,if you have to call it at all,"Buggered" seems appropriate to me.There you have it,if people of the same sex don't or can't follow the urge of procreation the same as the rest of us they can go and get "Buggered"

‘The Contours of a New World Order are emerging but not yet apparent.’ Julia Gillard Aust PM

Have a close look at those two, they could be Brother and Sister. Maybe Mum or Dad were a bit on the "sporty" side, if ya get my drift.

Ahh, never mind gay marriage , the wisdom of Allah will save us all.....

Is sodomy legal or illegal in Australia?