Australia votes Yes for same-sex “marriage”

[creslaw]

The sacrament of marriage, holy matrimony, between a man and a woman has been a central tenet of the Christian Church for 2,000 years. It will certainly be a test of faith for those who refuse to bend the knee to perversion, but that might be just what Christianity needs to revitalize believers.

 

[Paidiske]

The sacrament of marriage, holy matrimony, between a man and a woman has been a central tenet of the Christian Church for 2,000 years.

Many Christians would say that marriage is not a sacrament; that it is a state of life allowed and blessed by God, but that fundamentally, it's a covenant between the couple who get married, and that the church is witness to that; but that the involvement of the church is not essential in making it so.

 

[Philip_B]

Read the full text of Dean Smith's same-sex marriage bill speech

I would encourage people to read the speech delivered presenting the bill in the Australian Senate today.

Marriage vote returns Yes majority

I would also encourage you to read the post by ArchBishop Glenn Davies, who in terms of supporting to NO campaign contributed $1,000,000.00 au from Diocesan Reserves.

Australians live in a pluralist nation. We live in a nation that inherits something of that religious pluralism from the Edict of Milan, and it is enshrined in our Constitution. We have the right to worship and practice our religion, only fettered by our responsibility to allow the same freedom to those of other faiths and of no faith.

We are Christians, not because of what we are against, but for who we are for.

As Anglicans the 39 Articles describe Marriage as a one of the rites commonly called sacraments. In Australia marriage is not governed by the Church but by the State. In the performance of Marriages our Clergy act as ministers of the Church AND officiants of the State.

We are sent into the world to bind up, to heal, and to proclaim the love of God in Christ Jesus.

 

[creslaw]

Many Christians would say that marriage is not a sacrament; that it is a state of life allowed and blessed by God, but that fundamentally, it's a covenant between the couple who get married, and that the church is witness to that; but that the involvement of the church is not essential in making it so.

I'm not saying the Church is essential for marriage - many in my own family were married by secular celebrants. The question for Christians who do believe in the "holy estate of matrimony" between a man and a woman is how they will respond when they become involved in a legal situation that compels their compliance.

 

[Philip_B]

I'm not saying the Church is essential for marriage - many in my own family were married by secular celebrants. The question for Christians who do believe in the "holy estate of matrimony" between a man and a woman is how they will respond when they become involved in a legal situation that compels their compliance.

In a pluralist society the Church is expected to recognise marriages conducted outside the Church. If a person came to you with an extant secular marriage, you are not free to allow/assist them in marrying another person, which the existing legal marriage is intact. That does not change.

 

[creslaw]

In a pluralist society the Church is expected to recognise marriages conducted outside the Church. If a person came to you with an extant secular marriage, you are not free to allow/assist them in marrying another person, which the existing legal marriage is intact. That does not change.

I have no problem with any of that. The issue that concerns me is for those of us who sincerely believe same sex marriage is contrary to the laws of God and to be involved in a same sex wedding would be a violation of our faith. What do we do now if the law says we must act contrary to our Christian conscience?

 

[Paidiske]

The issue that concerns me is for those of us who sincerely believe same sex marriage is contrary to the laws of God and to be involved in a same sex wedding would be a violation of our faith. What do we do now if the law says we must act contrary to our Christian conscience?

The law doesn't compel anyone to be involved in a same sex wedding (or indeed any wedding). Don't put yourself in a position to be involved.

 

[creslaw]

The law doesn't compel anyone to be involved in a same sex wedding (or indeed any wedding). Don't put yourself in a position to be involved.

That might be ok for you but it does not work for people who believe that their actions would constitute involvement. We cannot answer for another person's conscience, especially when it concerns a fundamental belief of the Church.

 

[Paidiske]

That might be ok for you but it does not work for people who believe that their actions would constitute involvement. We cannot answer for another person's conscience, especially when it concerns a fundamental belief of the Church.

No, it does work. It's really simple. If you believe something's wrong, don't do it.

If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, don't have one. Don't become a celebrant.

If you believe making a cake for a same-sex marriage is wrong, then don't make wedding cakes (because it's not okay - or legal - to discriminate either). I'd challenge the premises of your ethical reasoning on that one (since when is someone who sells something ethically responsible for what the purchaser does with it?), but you do have that option to refrain.

It's not rocket science. When same-sex marriage becomes law, the vast majority of Australians will be able to go about their lives as if nothing at all has changed; because for them, nothing will have.

 

[Radagast]

If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, don't have one. Don't become a celebrant.

What about conservative Christian pastors? You're saying they should stop being celebrants? How do conservative Christians get married, then?

 

[Paidiske]

What about conservative Christian pastors? You're saying they should stop being celebrants? How do conservative Christians get married, then?

Ok. Quick lesson on how the marriage act works.

In Australia, there are two classes of marriage celebrants. There are civil celebrants, who don't take church services and are not allowed to discriminate in their services. And then there are ministers of religion, who are much more restricted.

As a minister of religion, I may only marry adherents of my religion. And I may only marry them according to the rites of my religious institution.

The day after same-sex marriage becomes legal in Australia, it will still be illegal for me to perform a same-sex marriage, because my religious institution has no rites for a same-sex marriage by which I could do so. This will not change except for churches or religious groups which choose to create and authorise rites for same-sex marriage (clearly, many won't).

In addition, a minister of religion has no obligation to marry any couple. I can already refuse to marry a couple if I disapprove of them for some reason (a civil celebrant doesn't have that right). I don't need to give them a reason. I don't need to have a good reason. It's totally at my discretion.

In all of the proposed changes to the legislation, no one is suggesting changing the conditions under which ministers of religion may solemnise weddings. So there is no question of ministers of religion having a problem here.

My earlier comment was only in regard to civil celebrants.

 

[creslaw]

No, it does work. It's really simple. If you believe something's wrong, don't do it.

If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, don't have one. Don't become a celebrant.

If you believe making a cake for a same-sex marriage is wrong, then don't make wedding cakes (because it's not okay - or legal - to discriminate either). I'd challenge the premises of your ethical reasoning on that one (since when is someone who sells something ethically responsible for what the purchaser does with it?), but you do have that option to refrain.

It's not rocket science. When same-sex marriage becomes law, the vast majority of Australians will be able to go about their lives as if nothing at all has changed; because for them, nothing will have.

Of course everyone has the option to refrain from doing what they believe is wrong, but it is not so simple when it affects your family or your church.

The majority of people in the type of churches I would attend know someone who will be affected by this new law and who will be required to make a decision on how they will respond.

Whether one voted yes or no, it should not prevent consideration of the difficulties of the other side.

 

[Philip_B]

What about conservative Christian pastors? You're saying they should stop being celebrants? How do conservative Christians get married, then?

Australia Law provides specific defences for the Church, in keeping with the pluralism enshrined in the Constitution which allows freedom of religion, so that is a given. Ministers of Religion are a specific class of celebrants in Australia and they are duty bound to follow the rites, rights, and rules of their specific religious tradition, where that does not conflict with the law of the land (so hence Islamic clergy are precluded from performing marriages which would otherwise be regarded as polygamous).

Also somewhere here someone suggested that the participation rate was 69.5%. That is incorrect, the participation rate was 79.5%.

 

[Philip_B]

Whether one voted yes or no, it should not prevent consideration of the difficulties of the other side.

That is a very important point, and I have elsewhere raised the issue about the gaping divide between western Sydney where roughly 12 electorates voted against with pretty much the same force that the rest of the country voted in favour. It highlight a significant potential issue for social cohesion.

Please pray for us.

 

[Paidiske]

Whether one voted yes or no, it should not prevent consideration of the difficulties of the other side.

I agree. I just don't actually believe that most of the things people are saying will happen to the "no" side because of this will happen. Some same-sex couples will get married. There is a slight possibility that a baker or florist or two will need to reconsider their vocation, if they really can't stomach the idea that someone might buy a cake from them for a same-sex marriage. The church will continue its worship and mission. And life will go on.

 

[creslaw]

I agree. I just don't actually believe that most of the things people are saying will happen to the "no" side because of this will happen. Some same-sex couples will get married. There is a slight possibility that a baker or florist or two will need to reconsider their vocation, if they really can't stomach the idea that someone might buy a cake from them for a same-sex marriage. The church will continue its worship and mission. And life will go on.

Obviously people disagree about the mission of the universal Church. Is it not true that the majority of the global Anglican community reject ssm?

 

[Paidiske]

Obviously people disagree about the mission of the universal Church. Is it not true that the majority of the global Anglican community reject ssm?

It is true. As does the Australian province of that church.

The mission of the church, however, is not to control secular law.

 

[creslaw]

It is true. As does the Australian province of that church.

The mission of the church, however, is not to control secular law.

Control, no, but influence, yes. In the Australian context, very few churches or clergy were silent about their support or opposition to ssm. Perhaps it has something to do with Jesus saying "you are the light of the world".

 

[Paidiske]

I took the approach of deliberately not making any public statement about my stance, because I needed to be available to people from all sides of the question, for pastoral care and as a safe person with whom to work through their issues. I couldn't do that if I was seen as taking sides.

Not saying my more vocal colleagues were wrong, but my focus was on the people in my parish who were hurting.

 

[creslaw]

I took the approach of deliberately not making any public statement about my stance, because I needed to be available to people from all sides of the question, for pastoral care and as a safe person with whom to work through their issues. I couldn't do that if I was seen as taking sides.

Not saying my more vocal colleagues were wrong, but my focus was on the people in my parish who were hurting.

And yet your stance is very clear from your posts - a member of your parish who was a 'florist' or 'baker' with traditional views might feel your approach was decidedly unsympathetic.