Some more reflections on the language of marriage

The Marriage Equality debate for me is one of social justice.
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.
I  ( and most other commentators) am not at all convinced (along with mainstream political and language/linguistic) theory that language is neutral.
Basically...you open your mouth, or your pen hits the the paper and you have already declared a whole lot of stuff that you you may or may not wish to have disclosed.
So The Marriage Equality (my preference) discussion is subject to all sorts of renaming..eg:

Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage

These both suggest that there are different types of marriage.
Obviously 'different types' of marriage does not suggest equality!

As a Christian I am well aware that conservative, right wing groups do not represent me (see below).
They are very strident and specific about using exclusive terminology 
as long as we describe marriage with other descriptors eg same-sex or Gay   then we are capitulating to the idea that marriage is not a Universal right, or that there are different types of marriage. Which is nonsensical!

To me I reiterate:
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.

But let me also add a discourse about the dilemma for Christians...particularly those of us who are NOT of the narrow/fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal, right-wing perspective




Let me not begin to treat on the so-called Australian Christian Lobby, (ACL) I have already made a number of posts here, and occasionally written a few letters to the paper (see below(1)) about this misnomer

They are indeed "Australian"...
but "Christian"  is not an accurately inclusive descriptor...most ACL members are one or more  of evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal.
This may be a controversial statement...they (ACL) are no doubt Christian, but are they Universal (ie representative of ALL Christians)?  I would suggest No!

Indeed I, and many others in mainstream Churches are not only unrepresented  by ACL but at odds with their narrow, legalistic, moralistic, puritanical version of Christianity.
Which seems to me at odds with the Jesus who welcomed prostitutes, sinners and tax collec
tors

In traditional parlance  the universal term for all Christians is Catholic (not Roman ...which is only part of the Universal)
The Catholic Church consists of ALL Christians (not just the Roman). The ACL is certainly not representative of that Universal Church

________________________

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

\

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.

To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.

So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  

I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.