Australia votes Yes for same-sex “marriage”

[Radagast]

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.

Well, (2) is clearly specified by the Act. I can't see that the Act specifies (1), since "adherent of my religion" has no legal meaning that I'm aware of, but for you that may be implicit in (2).

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.

I'm not sure that anybody knows exactly what will have happened when the dust finally settles. I would imagine that the High Court will wind up adjudicating several issues.

I also imagine that your next General Synod will be... interesting.

My earlier comment was only in regard to civil celebrants.

My misunderstanding. Oops.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. My stance on florists and bakers is very clear, because I don't think they have an ethical leg to stand on in denying service. (Not that I've discussed that in the parish; believe it or not, what I post on CF and what I say from the pulpit might have slightly different boundaries). That doesn't mean I'm champing at the bit to start celebrating same-sex marriages (hint: I'm not).

Well, (2) is clearly specified by the Act. I can't see that the Act specifies (1), since "adherent of my religion" has no legal meaning that I'm aware of, but for you that may be implicit in (2).

As far as I understand it, each religion gets to set their own parameters as to what makes someone an adherent of their religion, but ministers of religion are only legally authorised by the state to perform marriages for adherents of their own religion. In the case of the Anglican church, the litmus test has become whether someone has had a valid baptism.

That is not a litmus test without any problems, but it doesn't change the point that the conservative pastor is not suddenly going to be required to perform same-sex marriages.

I doubt this is even going to be seriously considered at General Synod for many years to come.

 

[Radagast]

In the case of the Anglican church, the litmus test has become whether someone has had a valid baptism.

That's kind of what I meant by "implicit in (2)." Conservative churches are much stricter. However, some of the denominations on the official list don't actually have formal membership.

I doubt this is even going to be seriously considered at General Synod for many years to come.

I was told that the Dean of Perth was going to raise it.

 

[Paidiske]

I was told that the Dean of Perth was going to raise it.

Plausible that he would, but I doubt it will get anywhere.

 

[stevevw]

I think this was an inevitable result from what has been happening around the world. Throughout the campaingne, people were attacking anyone who disagreed with same sex marriage which for me showed it was not just about equal rights. I think sometimes things are just not the same and we have to accept this but some supporters of same sex marriage want to make out that everything is the same by claiming that there is no gender and make out that this is a normal part of life. Anyone who disagrees is the one who has the problem. The no voters though disappointed have accepted the result and Tony Abbot is a good example of accepting the will of the people and the democratic system. Someone mentioned on the radio that if the no vote got up would there be the same acceptance and resignation for which they thought that the yes voters would have been much more vocal and disruptive if they lost.

I guess we should not be surprised because if you look back through history this is just another decision that is breaking down the family which has led to more problems. We have seen the introduction of divorce laws and many other policies that undermine the family unit such as earier abortions, and online self do it divorce kits. Now we may see the push towards other changes such as the legalisation of surrogacy, commercial conception, a rise in children being supported to have sex changes and the re-education of society with what is gender and a family. The breakdown of the traditional family and gender roles and the promotion of gender fluidity will continue until there is no difference and everything will be classed as normal. For me this is rearranging Gods creation and playing God which will only lead to more problems.

 

[stevevw]

Millions die each year because of the collective greed of modern society. I think who marries who is one of the last things we need to worry about, especially so from a faith perspective.

I think greed is one aspect of the problem but what does greed stem from. In some ways the breakdown in the family unit which represents a unit which means not just individualism but thinking of the group can lead to greed. Neo liberal ideas about the promotion of privatisation, individual accountability, enterprise and capitalism has lead to a class society where many grow poorer and those who are weak and disabled are left behind asopposed to those who have money who can have a better life. This political ideal of modern society is creating individualism and breaking down families. If you look at collective societies such as in Asia they place more importance of the group and family unit and these countries still have strong families which will helpthem through the difficult situations they face.

 

[Observer]

I voted yes.
I am divorced, by these same notions, my divorce should not be legal as it goes against the bible.

 

[fat wee robin]

This is not true.

???

 

[Philip_B]

Some early work on understanding why people voted suggests background and experience play a part. It seems that one of the most significant reasons why people came to vote yes was simply a journey out of people's interaction with other people.

If people have interaction with a friend or family member who the same-sex marriage debate directly affects, their attitude shifts very quickly. (abc news)​

I also suspect that there was a very unattractive set of ads televised for the no campaign that may have been counter productive and I know that I personally wanted to distance myself from them as to my mind they were largely unethical and unworthy. I think a lot of Australians voted for love, for people being committed to each other, for people supporting one another. I think most Australians want to put people ahead of rules and regulations.

 

[fat wee robin]

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.

The upper classes in London and outside said that there was no need to clean the public water, as they were not being affected by dissentry , and typhoid ,etc ; but when they realised that the germs had no boundaries ,and found their children and families affected ,finally universal clean water became the norm .

 

[Philip_B]

The upper classes in London and outside said that there was no need to clean the public water, as they were not being affected by dissentry , and typhoid ,etc ; but when they realised that the germs had no boundaries ,and found their children and families affected ,finally universal clean water became the norm .

That is very interesting, because it seems according to the analysis of voting in Australia it seems that the biggest factor affecting those who changed their vote to Yes was to support friends and family.

 

[Charlie V]

Committed, loving people vowing commitment to each other before God, and having legal protections for their property and children under a bound agreement, is not a perversion.

 

[Charlie V]

The real abomination is the failure to follow the two greatest commandments: to love God, and to love your neighbor.
Jesus spoke at length about these, and about what it means to love. About feeding the hungry, about visiting those in prison, about the Samaritan who assisted the man on the road.

He didn't waste an iota of time condemning people for loving each other.

 

[Waggles]

Statement from Australian Marriage Forum President

"Three months ago, when this postal vote process was announced,
our Media Release said no public vote, no Parliament, no court had the
authority to repeal nature and change the meaning of marriage.
We said that marriage is based on an unchangeable truth:
that only man and woman can create new life; only man and woman
can give a child her mother and father, her biological identity and ancestry.
No other relationship, however important, is Marriage.

But the unthinkable has happened with today's vote.

 

[Introverted1293]

 

[GingerBeer]

In Australia the survey question was

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?​

61.6% answered yes, 38.4% answered no and that was with a turnout of 80%.

The question had nothing to do with theology nor with specifically Christian morals.

 

[klutedavid]

Far too many you say? We only take in about 13,000 refugees a year. That's enough in my opinion.

What, do you want to bring back the white australia policy or something?

Hello webslave.

Australia took in 190,000 migrants last year, of those 17,555 were refugees.

All these migrants move into Sydney or Melbourne.

 

[GingerBeer]

Hello webslave.

Australia took in 190,000 migrants last year, of those 17,555 were refugees.

All these migrants move into Sydney or Melbourne.

Some move to Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Darwin, Ipswich, and many other places.

But what's that got to do with the same-sex marriage survey?

 

[GingerBeer]

[Staff edit].

Who, in their right mind, would try to force Christian moral values onto Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews? The law of the land applies to everybody it is not just for Christians. Australian law is not Christian law. I do not think it ought to be.

 

[Observer]

Who, in their right mind, would try to force Christian moral values onto Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews? The law of the land applies to everybody it is not just for Christians. Australian law is not Christian law. I do not think it ought to be.

Me either, but some people are suggesting they think it's right to impose Christian based laws and that if you disagree, you're not a "real Christian"