Marriage Equality

This morning President Barack Obama publicly confirmed for the first time that he is pro-gay marriage, but that he also believes it is the responsibility of the states, not the role of the federal government, to enact these laws.  This is probably a bad move for him politically as most of the swing states are in the south, and are mostly anti-gay marriage.  So whilst this may not be a smart move politically, it is a smart move in terms of character.  He is being honest, not trying to hide behind the opinion that will get him the most votes.  Good for him.  Even if you disagree, surely you want your leaders to be honest right?

Now to the Republicans.  Really Republicans?  Isn’t the central idea of Republicanism that we should have small government and people should be left alone to run their own lives?  How does being anti-gay marriage fit with that?  Even if you disagree with it, don’t you think that we all have the right to choose to live the way we like?  Or is that only when people make choices you agree with?  I simply don’t get how being anti-gay marriage fits with your philosophy.

And now to us in Australia.  I thought the Liberal party was meant to be a watered down version of the Republican party (in part anyway).  Doesn’t that mean you also want to let people choose for themselves and reduce the size of government?  How does being anti gay-marriage fit with this?

And Labor, aren’t you meant to be about the ‘fair go for all’?  How does being anti-gay marriage fit with this?  Aren’t we all meant to have equal rights under the law?  This is blatant discrimination based on a difference of moral opinion.  Doesn’t sound very fair to me.

The issue is not whether you agree with gay marriage or not.  That is completely beside the point.  You wouldn’t want anyone stopping you doing something because they disagreed with you, so don’t do it to others.  That’s what equality is, all of us being able to make the same choices.  Like getting married.  Whether you like their choice or not.

I have not heard of anyone against gay marriage who still argues that it isn’t discrimination.  Because we all know it is.  Apparently this is just a form of discrimination some of us are ok with.  Hmmm…


18 Replies to “Marriage Equality”

  1. Megski entering the gay marriage debate again, last time you did this you had over 100 comments. Just to be pedantic I’d like to point that there should be forms of discrimination that we are ok with. Isn’t discriminating just choosing one thing over another and the issue is whether or not it is unfair discrimination. I for one think discriminating against someone based on sexual preferance is unfair and I agree with you that the ideals our major political parties claim to adhere to in liberalism and in a fair go should mean that both parties support gay marriage. That they don’t says to me that they don’t give a hoot about undermining their foundational ideals for the sake of power. If they don’t stand for liberalism and a fair go anymore…what are their primary values? who are we voting for? So I would value more honesty from our leaders and less toeing the party or public line.

  2. “The issue is not whether you agree with gay marriage or not. ”

    The issue for Christians is whether God agrees with gay marriage or not.

    1. I disagree. If I think God disagrees with gay marriage, then I ought not to marry someone of the same sex. That doesn’t mean that I should legislate that no one else can either.

  3. Our legal system is based on the judeao-christian ethic though Megan. The legislation has been around for decades.what you are saying is that if the minority makes enough noise it will have legislation changed. what other legislation will change if homosexual marriage is legislated???

    it is a slippery slope.

    1. Inferring it’s a slope says that we are heading down and building up speed towards some abyss or crevasse or something. What if allowing gay marriage is actually a step up the hill towards loving, understanding, acceptance, unity… Or maybe it’s just a slightly undulating field devoid of crevasses and we can face each issue on its own merit.

    2. The origin of the thing does not mean that it is right.
      What other legislation do you think will change if gay marriage is legalised? I can’t see it being a slope to anywhere, other than as Kris says, to Christians being seen are more accepting and caring.
      Paul says:
      12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. . . .” -1 Corinthians 5:12-13a

      Who are we to tell those outside the church what to do?

    3. Incredibly flawed argument. Religions, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, didn’t invent morals. There are core moral values common to most religions that are just as valid to everyone: treat other people how you’d want to be treated, don’t be a dick, and worry about your own bullshit before you start judging other people’s.

      1. The Laws of a nation reflect the morality and ethics of society.
        Are you suggesting that Christians have no part in shaping either the law, or the morality and ethics of society?

  4. I assume that most same sex couples will be married by a civil celebrant, but some of them will want a church wedding. What will happen if a member of the clergy declines a request from a same sex couple to marry them? They’ll complain about it, and the clergyman or clergywoman, as the case may be, will end up having to appear before an anti-discrimination tribunal. Adam Bandt’s (Australians Greens, Melbourne) private members bill is supposed to contain safeguards to prevent this situation, but laws can be challenged in court or amended, so I think that this is what we can expect to happen eventually.

  5. Isn’t everything really down to moral opinion? I could say that I have no reason to think that murder is wrong, therefore it is my choice and no-one should stop me. Or self-harm, legally we have an obligation to report this to authorities if we hear about it happening, but its their choice and their body, so what right do we have?

    I am not comparing murder to homosexuality. But the point of saying that simply because ones man’s morals are different to anothers we should let ‘each do as he pleases’. This argument is crazy, surely you would stop your friend, sister, brother, from hurting themself?

    1. There is a difference between harming yourself, and making an informed decision as an adult that someone else disagrees with. Murder harms another person (not sure why you’re using this as a comparison), and self harm is clearly physically dangerous, as well as a sign of psychological unrest. Choosing to be in a homosexual relationship with another consenting adult is an issue that some may disagree with, but it’s not harming to another person. You may think it’s spiritually harming, but that is the choice of that person to make. You might think it’s not best for them, but legislating that is simply wrong. It’s wrong to force your morals on another. Jesus never did it.

  6. As a taxpayer whose taxes contribute to Defence, aren’t I affected when somebody decides we should go to war. As a democracy we have decided that we all contribute to certain things and we decide where the lines are drawn on issues of morality in law. We may not agree on certain expenditures or where the line is drawn and we get our say on how we think it should be but ultimately parliament and society decide. And Christians are charged with respecting the laws of the nation they find themselves in. With the majority, and the majority of Christians indicating support for Gay marriage it seems only a matter of time till the law changes and I wonder how that will be accepted by those that disagree.

    1. Yes, but if I understand the apostle Paul correctly, Christians don’t have to accept laws that are unjust. The so called marriage equality movement is vocal and well organised, is carefully managed, and has the support of most of the mainstream media, and has duped a lot of Christians into thinking that this proposal is no threat to them. This is reckless and dangerous social engineering, and I’ll guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. These are the sorts of headlines that we can expect to see in Australian newspapers in years to come. Perhaps this doesn’t concern you.

      MPs vote to stop civil servants refusing to carry out gay weddings”
      November 15, 2011
      “Dutch MPs voted on Tuesday afternoon for a change in the law to prevent civil servants refusing to conduct gay marriages.”

      “Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker”
      November 16, 2011
      “An Iowa baker who politely declined to provide a wedding cake for two lesbians based on her Christian values may face legal action from the couple.”

      “Gay rights activist calls for boycott of Salvation Army Christmas fundraiser”
      November 28, 2011
      “Gay rights activists who object to the Salvation Army’s biblical stance on homosexuality are launching their annual call to shut down the organization’s Christmas fundraiser.”

      “Case of counseling student forced to undergo pro-homosexual ‘sensitivity training’ goes to court”
      December 2, 2011
      “After losing at a lower court, a counseling student at a public university in Georgia who was threatened with expulsion because she expressed discomfort with counseling homosexuals, is pleading her case before an Appeals Court this week.”

      “Macy’s fires woman for refusing ‘transgender’ man access to women’s fitting room”
      December 8, 2011
      “A woman has been fired from a Macy’s department store for denying a man dressed as a woman access to the women’s fitting room. ‘I had to either comply with Macy’s or comply with God,’ said Natalie Johnson.”

      “All Ontario teachers will be forced to undergo ‘diversity’ training by 2013: minister”
      December 22, 2011
      “By 2013 prospective teachers in Ontario will be required to undergo focused training in ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender diversity,’ says a cabinet minister in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government.”

      “A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows ‘some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals’.”
      January 12, 2012

      “Amsterdam chief rabbi suspended for gay stance”
      January 18, 2012
      “The Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam suspended its US-born chief rabbi on Tuesday for cosigning a declaration which said homosexuality was a ‘treatable’ inclination.”

      “Attorney Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption”
      January 24, 2012
      “A 15-year-old Wisconsin boy who wrote an op-ed opposing gay adoptions was censored, threatened with suspension and called ignorant by the superintendent of the Shawano School District, according to an attorney representing the child.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s