Stepping out

Get Up notes that over 100 laws were passed by the Senate last night to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. It is worth thinking what these 'discriminations' might be. Some are horrendous, like people being denied equity with regard to superannuation because they happen to have lived with a same, rather than different, sex partner. So, when your partner dies if you are married or have been in a defacto relationship superannuation consideration involve workign out what your entitlement to that might be. It would seem inequitable that people who have supported each other, perhaps bought property together, shared common goals and so on should be denied equity without costly litigation.
More emotional has been an understanding who 'next of kin' might be. Numerous stories abound of same-sex partners being denied any say in funeral arrangements, often cut out completely by families who have been antipathetic to the deceased person's lifetstyle.
What ever we may personally feel about people's lifestyle choices, we have no right to discriminate against what are essentially personal and/or private decisions.
The Attorney, Robert McLelland, has reasserted that same-sex marriage is not on the books (here) . This is to be expected, if not a bit lamentable. In time it will come I suspect.
In the meantime any steps forward are to be welcomed.

Curiouser & Curiouser

It is curious to receive communication from the Family First Party about maintaining Eccelsiastical privilege in legislation.
Belonging to a denomination which has often been accused of exercising undue influence in the Parliaments of this land in a quasi-established-church way I sometimes detect from some of these newer groups a sort of influence envy. Indeed this would seem to be a major dynamic in the formation of Family First...a wish to influence the politcial process. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out.
The Anglican Church should remind these folk of that which it needs to periodically remind itself, something to do with cutlery required for supping with the devil (hence the cartoon).
The particular matter that the Honourables Evans & Hood put before us is the seeming removal of the church's right to vilify whomsoever it likes in the name of preaching and "Biblical" teaching.
To be sure they name these issues rather differently "REMOVING" the right to preach and the right to counsel.; which is I sufggest something of a furphy.
There is a real question to be asked here of whether anyone should be allowed to say anything they like in the name of religious faith. I just think this is not on.
While they are particularly citing (surprise, surprise) the right to call a spade a sodomite; if this is to be taken to its logical conclusion then would they be so keen to allow a Calathumpian to say that Pentecostals are narrow-minded bigots, or that Christians in general are polytheistic cannibals, or that Jews add the blood of children to the Passover loaf. [Students of history will note that I use those examples because they represent real accusations of the past]
My problems is that I think it is a very selective exegesis of how Christians are supposed to practise their faith and live as responsible citizens. My reading of (particularly Paul's) teaching about citizenship is that we should be exemplary in complying to the laws of the State, and require at least as much, and probably more, compliance and obedience as the general populace.
Surely when it comes to decrying vilification we shouldn't be reserving the right to vilify who we like, we should be at the forefront of compliance.
I do not want to stifle public debate, or give permission for the sermon police to be formed. But being religious does not give me, or anyone else the right to insult, demean or diminish the rights of anyone else.