People are more precious to God than you or I could possibly conceive. His love for humanity extends well beyond any earthly notion we may hold, yet we can catch a glimpse of what it looks like in the rescue mission of Jesus, an act that cost Him His life in exchange for ours.
What I wish to say here, I wish to convey with compassion knowing that this is territory that is highly emotionally charged. And yet, I wish to be faithful to what I believe is right and true.
I believe the move to change legislation in order to allow same-sex marriage, through the redefinition of marriage, to be the wrong one.
The terms we hear in arguing for same-sex marriage are familiar ones, “equality”, “end discrimination”, “banish homophobia”. Unfortunately, they do little to encourage civil and sensible debate on what is an issue of huge national significance.
Of course, we stand for equality. Of course, discrimination has no place in our nation. Of course, we must distance ourselves from the "stench" of homophobia (not merely a phobia but anything remotely in opposition to the gay lobby / agenda / 'rights' movement). But in actuality, the debate on same-sex marriage is not about reforming for equality or ending discrimination, homophobic or otherwise.
In this nation, cohabiting same-sex couples hold the same rights as cohabiting heterosexual couples. Recent law reform has provided for this “equality of rights” over such areas of legislation affecting taxation, social security and health, aged care and employment. This follows the move to recognize same-sex cohabiting couples as ‘de facto’ relationships, in the same ways that heterosexual cohabiting couples are.
Curiously, this is seen in the high profile case of Wallabies flanker David Pocock, an advocate of same-sex marriage, who ironically refuses to legally marry his “wife” until, in his words, "marriage discrimination” is ended. What it does show, quite well, is that de facto relationships under law, protects and provides for cohabiting relationships (both same-sex and heterosexual) in an entirely adequate manner. One wonders if Pocock experiences the true marginalization and victimization he claims gay couples must endure under the current arrangements outside of “marriage”? I think that would be drawing a very long bow.
What we have seen and heard from the various interest groups pushing the same-sex marriage campaign is the need to end discrimination, when discrimination has already been ended in this domain. And so where there is no material discrimination (a fact glaringly lacking from the public debate), the only basis we are left with is a philosophical one, one that is seeks to redefine marriage is in opposition to traditional marriage and family. There is an agenda at play that is pushing for radical social re-engineering; a very different position from which to redefine marriage than to simply “make things fairer” for the 1.5% of the population for whom this issue is (at best) going to affect.
Like it or not, marriage is, and has been as long as this nation has been in existence, the bedrock of our civilization. That is not to say every marriage is perfect or that relationships of value outside it have never existed. What it is saying is that the covenanting together of husband and wife provides the best foundation from which to nurture children and so set the direction for the nations future. Children do matter in this mix and yet why is that the rights of children are uniformly absent from this debate?
One reason I would put forward is the notion and catch-cry that “all we need is love”. "If people love each other, what does it matter? Right?" As Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt says: "Love has no boundaries; love has no limits."
I would argue that is actually a breathtakingly self-centered view of love.
Love is, at its core, absolutely concerned with the other. Love is in fact driven by wanting the best for the other. That, in the case of children, means boundaries! “Don’t touch the stove, don’t run on the street”. These are limits of necessity and arise because of concern for the wanting the best for the child. It extends to every other type of loving relationship as well. Boundaries protect, nurture and promote what is valued over what is not.
But the view given by Bandt of love is one becoming increasingly adopted in our society. The problem with this though is that a self-centred view of love will, by necessity, begin, at some point, to impinge on the freedoms and liberties of others in that society.
Some scoff at the warnings given by advocates of traditional marriage in the face of the same-sex marriage debate. Of course, civilisation won’t immediately collapse should such Bills be passed in parliament, but where same sex marriage legislation has been passed in other jurisdictions, following thereafter has invariably been restrictions on other freedoms long enjoyed there, most notably the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
The Judeo-Christian ethic found at the core of harmonious, democratic western nations is to “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. The words of Jesus promote a selflessness as the expression of love, not a selfishness.
This has fostered a civic environment where freedoms are valued because what is good for my neighbour is ultimately good for me too. We are now increasingly seeing western societies move away from this foundation (and others like it) because of an over-emphasis on individual sensitivities at the exclusion of the greater corporate good.
In the case of same-sex marriage, we find a situation where Christians who hold an orthodox biblical view of the marriage relationship now at odds with not just gay activitists pushing for solemnization rites for their relationship, but also with the state.
This must be of grave concern for anyone who values a free and democratic nation. Where the personalised, subjective rights of one impinge upon the rights of others, we can be sure criminal prosecution for “hate crimes” and like, will soon follow. When this occurs to those in our midst for simply for holding to one’s own religious convictions, we lose much of our cherished heritage as a nation.
The removal of limitations and boundaries, and in fact any restrictions in general, does not promote a more equitable society. Rather it promotes an environment where the most aggressive, the most self-important, and the loudest gets to create rules by which everyone else must live. This is not justice, it is not equality, it is in fact tyranny.
The upshot of same-sex marriage in Australia is that people with strong and sound convictions (religious or otherwise), will in time, face unfair penalties simply for holding those views. This is not alarmist talk. It is simply the natural progression (with historical precedent in places like Canada) of this social re-engineering that promotes and elevates the interests, feelings, wants of the very few but very loud over the established, non-confrontational rights of others. This certainly is a matter of justice, but not as it is portrayed.
