Here's the bad news. You have an IQ test coming up and if you fail, the consequences could be dire. The good news is that, if you read this to the end with an open mind, you should pass the test with flying colours.

Okay, so I’m going to give you some questions to answer which will help you to understand the test better. So here is question 1)

“I want you to put me in a position of absolute power. Once there I will put a stop to the mistreatment of cute fluffy kittens. Will you help me? If not, that means that you are a heartless bastard who doesn’t care about the suffering of all those poor cute fluffy kittens.”

Did you answer yes, you will help me?

If so, you are a gullible idiot.

Anyone asking that question doesn’t care about fluffy kittens. What they care about is power. Once they have it, the kittens will be flushed down the toilet along with anyone who poses a threat to them gaining even more power.

Russians were promised a worker’s paradise if they would just help the Bolsheviks gain power. Who could say no to such a thing?

Not enough Russians unfortunately.

Fifty million of them took out the Darwin award for that one (awarded posthumously of course). The Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, North Koreans, Venezuelans and many others failed it too, all with the same horrific consequences.

Okay, so moving on to question 2: Can the Government repeal the law of gravity? The surprising answer to this one is that in theory of course, yes, they can.

However, even if they do so, I wouldn’t recommend bungee jumping without a substantial elastic band tied firmly around your ankles. The Law of Gravity is a Natural Law and has nothing to do with Governments.

Okay, you got that one, so Question 3 should be easy. Can the Government declare me to be a duck?

Once again, in theory, yes they can. However, even if I can find someone to surgically implant feathers all over my body and I can make realistic quacking noises, I still won’t be a duck. My species is governed by biological law and no matter what laws the Government passes, I won’t be flying South without an airline ticket anytime soon.

Right, you got that one too, so the next question should be a walkover. Can a Government change the definition of marriage?

Once again, In theory, yes they can, but in practice they can’t. That is because marriage isn’t a legal institution, it is a religious institution. Specifically, in Australia, it is a Christian institution.

                                      The Green Left have an array of agenda

I’m not married by the way and I’m not a Christian. I’m not saying this is how it should be. I’m just pointing out how it is for me.

If you have never been to a wedding before, here is how it works. The bride and groom get dressed up and go to a church with friends and family. Everyone sings a couple of hymns. The priest/vicar says some prayers and reads a sermon from the Bible about the sanctity and reason for marriage. Then he asks them to take a series of vows before God. Once this is done, the priest/vicar declares them to be man and wife.

That over, the couple quickly pop into the back room to sign a legal document. Then everyone takes off to the reception where Uncle Bernie does that embarrassing thing he always does during the Chicken Dance.

That document the couple just signed is a legal codification of a religious institution. When people live together without being married, it is known as “living in sin.”

Admittedly, things have changed. Today, some people do get married without a church service. They make up their own vows and have whatever ceremony they like. The contract they sign however, is still based on the Christian definition of marriage which is defined in the Bible.

So why can’t the Government simply rewrite this contract? Well, there is a very good reason. If the Government re-writes the Marriage Contract, they will be forced to apply it across the board.

That means that Churches will be forced to accept whatever definition of marriage the Government decides to give them.

If the Government’s definition is different to the Bible’s definition (which sure as poop it will be) then the Government will tell Christians how, and with whom, they must conduct their religious traditions.

The Government will tell Christians how they must interpret the Bible, which bits they can take seriously and which bits they must leave out.

In doing so, they will be in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They will also be in contravention of Section 116 of the Constitution. Section 116 forbids the Government from making any laws which interfere with religious conduct. This clause was inserted for a very good reason.

It grew out of horrendous religiously inspired government tyranny and violence. Much of that violence occurred centuries ago.

If you think however, that religious violence can’t make a comeback then you have probably been living on Mars for the last couple of decades.

When political leaders take on the mantle of God’s intermediaries, it rarely ends well. The Ancient Egyptians tried it, the Japanese tried it, the Muslims are still trying it. You don’t want to go there.

Once gay marriage is instituted, anyone who disagrees with any aspect of this program will find themselves in front of a judge. They will be facing stiff fines or even gaol time for discrimination.

The Government will have finally gained the right to punish people for expressing an opinion.  

At that point, you have lost Freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

You will however have achieved “Marriage Equality” and we can all make heart shapes with our fingers while Government goons march little old ladies off to the Gulag for agreeing with the Bible.

Does all of this sound a bit far-fetched to you?

The Greens’ website features some articles on the subject. One such article is penned by Joel Dignam (above) who is apparently a lead organiser of the ACT Greens. He tells us that:

“Queer campaigners are beginning to question the validity of same-sex marriage as a campaign focus… But if we are to think in terms of our ultimate objective as queer campaigners, then we should recognise that ‘equal love’ is a critical step…

"The point of a campaign is less to solve everything, and more to build power to continue to achieve victories. Legalising same-sex marriage won’t only reduce discrimination — it will give queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change …

"Queer campaigners should not win their rights by meekly trudging into the tent of patriarchal marriage, their tails between their legs. Rather, the same-sex marriage campaign can be about dismantling the walls of the tent, expanding it to be open to more of us, and continuing to liberalise this cultural institution …”

I’m just going to remind you that the above article is posted on the website of the Greens. Those are the same “Greens” who told the voters that they had “an environmental agenda.”

Meanwhile, they are telling the general public that they have an “equality agenda” and they are telling the Gay Lobby that they have a “queer agenda”.

I don’t know what their real agenda is but if you vote to let them change the Marriage Act, I suspect we will all find out.

So do you vote yes, or no? That is your IQ test. See if you can figure it out.

Good luck