Will I be like a racist?

So it seems that the past week and weekend has been particularly prolific on the pro same-sex marriage front with marches and all sorts of things happening.

On Sunday we found out about a group of doctors who have come out and said that it's bad for families.  Predictably we're told by others that this is wrong.  Either way there is more to marriage than children so I'm unsure of why we keep making marriage about children in this debate.  The debate will be won or lost on the issues of 'equality' and 'love'.  It has nothing to do with children essentially.  I even heard Penny Wong on QandA on Monday night rightly tell Joe Hockey that making marriage about children was dumb as people have kids without marriage.

Anyway, I noticed in this group of doctors was a prominent Victorian psychiatrist Dr George.  She happens to be on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.  She has now said she is not in favour of same-sex marriage.  This is former AMA chief Karen Phelps response:

Gay rights activist and former AMA president Kerryn Phelps said Dr George's position on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission should be reviewed

Essentially the argument goes, Dr George does not support same-sex marriage.  Therefore she can no longer be on the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because same-sex marriage is a right. And this debate is about 'equality'.  Which leads me to the title of my post.  I suspect in the next few years when the same-sex marriage bill is passed if you are opposed to it will essentially be like saying, 'all black people are stupid'.  Or something like that.  That is just like (rightly so I might add) we have moved against racism so we will move against 'homophobia', which will equal not being pro-homosexuality, especially same-sex marriage.

So what to do about this?  Well on one level what we're debating at the moment is the definition of a word.  The word is marriage.  At the heart of the debate is 'equality' in the law.  I still maintain that the best way forward is for the marriage act to be completely amended and renamed the 'civil union' act.  Then at law my marriage becomes a 'civil union' with all the same rights and benefits afforded to me from my marriage.  Then if I want to say I'm married.  Then I simply go to my church and have a religious service.  So at law I am civil-unioned.  On a religious level I'm married.  This would seem to be the option that makes everyone happy.  We all get equality and marriage is not redefined.

Failing this, which I think is likely, then Christians have lost their claim to the word marriage.  Marriage will come to mean, not a God ordained way of being, but a secular legal way of being.  In this case we will need to think about a new word to use that describes what we currently call marriage.  One man and woman united together for life.  Perhaps wedded or christian marriage or something.

Read More

Is Supporting Same-Sex Marriage brave?

The whole same-sex marriage debate is an interesting case study in how one side of an argument brilliantly co-opted the debate and will eventually win.  That is, it seems obvious to me that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Australia (graphic comes from this article).

I've been fascinated how those in favour of same sex marriage how brilliantly co-opted phrases like 'marriage equality' and 'equal love'.  Phrases that quite frankly as an Australian it is hard not to agree with.  After all we're all supposedly equal in our egalitarian country!  How dare the government discriminate like this.  It is brilliant political and social campaigning and those who oppose same-sex marriage have been left looking unloving, hateful, oppressive even.  I'm not sure if there was a possibility of appearing any other way.

Another part of the campaign is that it is 'brave' to come out in support of same-sex marriage.  For example Barrack Obama is said to be brave.  On Twitter last night after Channel 10s The Project did a segment on same-sex marriage people said it was brave for people to support it.  But surely to be brave there requires some form of danger?  Surely to be brave holding your view has to threaten your safety in some way.  As far as I can tell it would actually seem more brave to voice your opposition to same-sex marriage.  For example it would have taken a lot of bravery if someone on The Project last night had spoken up to defend people who do not believe same-sex marriage is legitimate.  In the midst of their rhetoric of its time for people who don't agree with same-sex marriage to 'get into the 21st century' it would take a brave man or woman to stand up against that.  Likewise on QandA on ABC often I hear questions and comments, especially from the host, in relation to this issue that requires bravery to stand up against.  So the gay lobby have been successful at co-opting their 'equal love' mantra, thus making anyone who stands against equality morally bankrupt and totally unAustralian.  In doing so they cannot claim that it is brave to agree with this.  No it is brave to stand against this view.

On an Melbourne Anglican side note I read in an article today this quote:

Reverend Gary Bouma, from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, said the Marriage Act was discriminatory. "It's dehumanising to tell someone their love isn't right," he said.

I would be keen to know what the ArchBishop makes of Rev Gary Bouma's statement and if he thinks this to be an unorthodox position what will be done about it. I'd also love to know how the Anglican church deals with priests who stray off message.  Perhaps Rev Bouma is on message?  This is a pertinent issue for me as I continue to discern my call to Anglican ordination.

Read More