The language of marriage

Let's make no mistake that the nuance of language does matter
I have been trying to encourage people to use correct ...perghaps the expression is more accurate ...language in regard to the present discussions about who is and who is not allowed to get married.
For me there is a universal human right that all adult human beings should be allowed to enetre into lifelong marital relationship.
More than this, I would maintain that traditional Christian doctrine has a high view of marriage as an agent for social stability and for the secure nurrture of future generations of children

In marriage a new family is established in accordance with God’s purpose, so that children may be born and nurtured in secure and loving care, for their well-being and instruction, and for the good order of society, to the glory of God.

N and N have now come here to be joined in this holy union to which God has led them. They seek his blessing on their life together, that they may fulfil his purpose for them; and they ask us to support them in this prayer. If anyone can show why they may not lawfully be joined in marriage, speak now, or hereafter remain in silence.

(The Australian  Anglican Church's current prayerbook)

If you dig back into this statement we well know that the social supposition has for most of recorded history  assumed, and indeed asserted, that  "N and N"  have actually been  Mary and Mark, rather than Mary and Margie, or Mark and Mike.

But I want to dig around that in the next few articles.

At the heart of my thinking is equality, social stability and, primarily, the secure and loving care of children.
This does not seem to me to be intrisnically linked to: the age difference of the parents, the racial or credal difference, the intellectual compatibility (or otherwise) and finally (the cause of the current dicussion in Australia) the requirement for N & N  to be  of different gender



Here's a couple of links to other interesting articles on this issue
http://splash.abc.net.au/home#!/media/1163914/presenting-a-point-of-view-about-marriage-equality

https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/sep/25/gay-or-straight-lets-embrace-the-language-of-marriage-equality

Marriage Equality---

This is a reblog of a post from September 2014

I had a very thoughtful and charitable letter from A who "respectfully disagreed" with my views about same-sex marriage.
I think it is now better to call it "equal marriage"
I wrote in reply

A
Thanks for your response to my blog
I have made a number of posts over the years …you may not have tracked them all down
On my blog a link might be:
http://stephenclarks.blogspot.com.au/search?q=gay+marriage

I have a high view of marriage, [ this may surprise you] and part of my discussion about equal marriage opportunity is about encouraging commitment, morality and in particular an environment in which children may be nurtured  with the assurance of love and security. This latter principle is one that is explicitly stated in the Anglican marriage services.
It does seem to me that the gender of the parents is secondary to the parents’ commitment to love each other. This is the primary environment out of which children will know that they are loved. And in that love to allow the children to know that they are loved.
We are all well aware that many homosexual people live immoral lives…..I want them to live committed, decent lives.
Sorry,
I could also re-write that statement :  

We are all well aware that many heterosexual people live immoral lives…..I want them to live committed, decent lives.
I have experienced a couple of extraordinary things in the last year. A homosexual couple (male) who have embraced twins into their lives. They seemed to think it was going to be a breeze, and it wasn't…my observation is that it has transformed their relationship. They are deeper people, more loving, more capable of embracing carefully the lives of the fragile.
Most gay people do not “choose to be gay”…they are born that way.
Did God want them to live a life doomed to failure? With all due respect, I don’t think God is like that. God does not make life particularly hard for 10%…!

It is not as if we have a God who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses! (Heb 4:15)

I do not think homosexuality is a weakness, any more than heterosexuality is. We struggle with both! We are after all made in God's image. Male and female God created us, ...is it too presumptuous to say "gay and straight" God created us!

Valid medical reasons

We can get ourselves into some curious ethical situations that would not have been possible fifty or even twenty years ago. We read in today's press for example that numbers of active male service personnel who have had their sperm frozen (presumably in case they are killed) unauthorised but at taxpayer's expense have had their sperm removed.
The policy is apparently that only those with genuine "assisted reproductive issues" can avail themselves of this facility. Apparently risk of death is not an "assisted reproductive issue".
One of the problems with reproductive ethics is that the issue are often resolved 'on the run', rather than dispassionately. While it is important to take context into account, it is also important that we not allow ourselves to be swayed in such sensitive areas by emotion alone.
The inevitable sadness we might feel at the death of a soldier, or at the disappointment of his parents at being denied grandchildren, or at a widow wanting a genetic reminder of her spouse are a very heavy circumstantial overlay to lay upon this debate.
I am also cautious about children being conceived with the expectation that they will not just be born into this world and (hopefully) allowed to thrive but also have to bear the added responsibility of representing a dead soldier, perhaps their father. To not just be a son or a daughter, but also have to be the constant living embodiment of a dead parent.
I am not, at this stage, I think, against the idea. I just think there is a discussion that needs to happen, which I have not particularly been aware of. And ti would be best if this was done at arm's length.
I would be interested in your comments.

Sorry, I didn't quite hear you!

All of us us have experience of the mondegreen or the misheard lyric. [I sang for much of my childhood It's Mobil Castor Oil... heaven knows why anyone would think such a song line would exist...have you guessed it yet?]

I have listened to my daughters mis-singing the Abba song Lay all your love on me!

Blithely they sing the mondegreen. Don't go wasting your devotion! Now forgive me but don't the lyrics say...Don't go wasting your emotion, Lay all your love on me...then you are allowed to sing ...Don't go sharing your devotion

Both sentiments are challenging!

But it does strike me as interesting that my children think that the correct attitude of others towards them should not only be that of wasted emotion but rather of total "devotion". Good luck to them

Retribution-getting younger

Despite my premature elevation to grandparent status yesterday (see below) two things today told me that this was premature.
First, the youngest S Clark (*who someone thought was my granddaughter yesterday*) was so so rude to me this morning that I realised she must be my 16 year old daughter, as no one could/should be that rude to their grandfather.
Second, same S Clark left her shoes in the car and I had to go back and drop them off! This time I heard the lady I gave the shoes to say "S C's father has just dropped her shoes off!!". Yeah!!!!!

Go ahead and smack me

A new corporal punishment debate is started by news (no-doubt jumbled) that one woman has been chatted to by police about smacking her kid with a wooden spoon.

It just seems to me that a wooden spoon is a quite nasty weapon, particularly because it is conveniently to hand. And also because I know that I am one of those people who can too easily go from a tap-to a slap-to a thump.

I determined early on in my time as a parent that I needed to discipline myself to not strike my children. I did not always manage this, and it always said more about my behaviour than theirs.

Simple gifts

By its very nature my job means I spout a lot of words into the atmosphere. It can be vaguely disconcerting because you are never quite sure if people are hearing what you are saying (or for that matter if what you sayign is worth being heard!).
Yesterday morning for example things seemed to be going quite well then I noticed that M (who notoriously absents herself from mental engagement with sermon and/or worship) had sort of connected...but about 5 minutes in became quite animated. She was obviously watching what was going on behind me!
Then H was looking in the same direction.
I felt a degree of anger well up within and wanted to turn round and see what could possibly be more fascinating than me! I resisted the temptation and the desire to publicly chide them.
The stupid candle, which hadn't been changed because for the third month in a row the rostered sacristan hadn't done her job, had gone up in a blaze of glory. Obviously far more more interesting than the proclamation of the Gospel!
It is easy to be judgmental. I have absented myself from too many homilies in the past to be judgmental about those who couldn't give a stuff about what I am saying.
Any way. God, who is rich in mercy, allowed me to have two simple gifts the next time round.
There were a number of young kids in the later service...it's always difficult to compete. But they were good and indeed..delightful.
It was great when asking a rhetorical question "After all we people of faith know that Jesus is alive, don't we?" To have a little 3 year old voice say "Yes!" without looking up from her drawing and without any casuistry, total conviction!
Then after the service, checking that the oldies were OK, I asked K who's having a rought trot at the moment (and who's had a helluva life...but she would never see it that way) how it was going.
And she beamed, in way that I had worried she had forgotten how and said "OOOh you know Easter, Don't be alarmed!"
She was quoting back some of Mark's account of the resurrection about which I preached on Easter day (here). It is worth it if one person listens!

Field of Argent

Today is our twenty fifth wedding anniversary which gives cause for thought. I remember when I thought that 25 years was an impossibly long time and that only old people could possibly get there. The first time I was chastened by that was when my parents had theirs. They didn't seem that old. I suppose my mother was slightly older than I am now and my father slightly younger.
Indeed one of the things I note (is this a feature of growing old?) is that anything less than forty years is almost passé and Golden wedding anniversaries are quite common, so that I could happily write in the card I got for S that I hope we would have another 25 better years.
I am not so pedestrian as to suggest that the last two and a half decades have been so fantastic that we would want the next twenty five years to be just like it. God forbid! I just hope I am better at it than I have been.
Highlights? Well of course our three children have been the chief fruit of this period. We have managed to cope with three lots of school, and two lots of university so far. We haven't quite managed to liberate them from the nest. I look forward to that day!
But not only do we have children and nephews and nieces its been a great thing to marry some of them off, and bso there are also great nephews and nieces and. I am ready to be a grandfather. These are words I had never envisaged saying.
Our parents taught us how important family holidays were and we have been able to have good family holidays at least once every year. Not always far away, though we have enjoyed some pretty quality times in the last few years.
Lowlights? Can you imagine living with me for 25 years? Even my parents didn't have to cope with that! So it has not been without its trials. We had a period of separation about ten years ago, which was awful but necessary. My best man deserted us in our hour of need, apparently we used up all our quota of neediness and he had nothing more to give.
We have lived in 6 different places in that period. Both my parents died. The world has changed and John Howard has been PM for more than a third of that time! It would be remiss of me not to say that being a minister of the church has taken its toll on all of us.
Here's to the next 25!

Weakening the twenty second catch

Many will be, if not pleased then, interested to hear that the dreaded health checks of aboriginal children will not be compulsory. (see Minister Abbot's comments here)
Threats of these checks have allegedly sent mothers scurrying with their children into the bush, fearful that those who 'fail' their tests will be removed from their parents. This, after all, is a strategy used throughout Australia, not just in aboriginal communities...children 'at risk' are placed in care. It is difficult to know what else to do, since child abuse situations clearly demand prompt action.
What, too, if checks actually uncover child abuse and promises have been made that children will be left with their families...whilst the spectre of removing children from their parents looms large in aboriginal communities, nevertheless what to do?
All this stresses the need to have a properly resourced (and highly resourced) totally independent body that oversees this. That is totally free of political interference.
Maybe this is just vain hope and naivete on my part. As each decade goes on this problem get worse, and more expensive. At what point will we bite the bullet and say this is actually more important than being in Iraq. Or maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of what governments and politics can achieve.