Marriage Equality---opportunity to act SUPPORT NOW

I have taken up the invitation to write to Parliamentarians in anticipation of next-week's resumption of sittings in Canberra about Marriage Equality.
In particular you could do likewise by following Australian Marriage Equality's link.

I chose to write to C Pyne, as a prominent SA Liberal politician ( or another similar) along the following lines

Dear Mr Pyne

You are more than well-aware  that the nation is paying close attention to the discussion in your Party room next week about Marriage Equality.

I happen to be a priest of the Anglican Church, and along with a number of my colleagues am steadfastly in favour of Marriage Equality. Many Christians are in favour of this move

I also recognise, sadly, that it is unlikely that internal processes within a number of Christian Church's themselves will allow this to happen within Church ranks.

Yet this does not mean, I suggest, that our Nation as a whole should not go forward .

It seems unlikely to me that, as a priest, the Anglican Church will allow me to pray for God's blessing on the marriage of same-sex partners who clearly wish to make a lifelong marriage commitment to each other and their children. This is to the Church's shame.

I am sorry that, as a Commonwealth,  we have got stuck, largely because the plebiscite as a process  is clearly not going to work!  

This is so atrociously political on all sides as to be offensive.

I think it is incumbent upon the party of Government to move to break this impasse and exercise leadership.

The community is more than tired of the petty-politicking and I urge you and your colleagues to move definitely to resolve this.

[I think the 'Dutton Postal Vote' option is just a bizarre distraction, and cynical in the extreme.  Non-compulsory, non-binding. In other word 'non helpful' & 'non useful']

All the best and 

Respectfully,

Stephan Clark

Parish Priest: St Mary Magdalene's  

Anglican Church, Adelaide.

You might like to write to Pyne (above), or Birmingham or similar .
Birmingham seems to have become such a 'creature of the machine' which is deeply sad as he is creative thinker and should do better

More language of marriage

Marriage doesn't need adjectival qualification.

Indeed the only qualification that I have any sympathy with is "underage"; and indeed that is already covered by the law. Like namely it is NOT a marriage under law.

And we wouldn't for a moment  think of qualifying marriage of two people in their 70s as "Pensioner Marriage"---I have incidentally conducted such a wedding. The Bride's mother was also there (aged 95), and her daughter, and her granddaughter who was with child ...so there is an excellent photo of 5 generations even if the youngest is ion her mother's womb....

I myself was once party to a marriage of people born in two different countries....it has never-ever been referred to as "interracial", or even "international" or "cross national"..we were just married.

I likewise have married people of different races...it would be offensive to call this "interracial".

I have married quite a number of interfaith couples; and indeed couples of no faith (an expression, I suspect, which is devoid of meaning...yet full of import)

I have never enquired about people's sexual predilections; so I have no idea whether anyone of the 400+ people  I have married are same-sex attracted, racially attracted, religiously biassed (I have discovered latterly...and surprisingly...that a few are some of these things).

To my mind everyone should have opportunity to marry... this is not about sex, race, nationality...

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.

Another remarkable man

Another remarkable man and Anglican, Malcolm Boyd,  who is also a priest ( oh my goodness you lay people have it easy) died this week.

Boyd was 93. He was one of those wonderful thinkers who was able to challenge the community of faith to "look/live outside   the square". That is,  to think creatively. (a full newspaper eulogy in The LA Times is here)

Part of the article tells us quite a lot 

" Boyd was elected president of PEN, an advocacy group for writers' freedom of speech. He started living with Mark Thompson, who was a senior editor for the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian newspaper. At the time, it was generally expected that gay Episcopal clergy remain celibate.

Twenty years later in 2004, when Boyd and Thompson renewed their vows in a church ceremony, the majority of Episcopalians had approved of gay marriage at a national conference. Boyd's anniversary service was held at the Episcopal Cathedral Center of St. Paul in Los Angeles with five bishops among the guests and Bishop Jon Bruno presiding.

Boyd and Thompson married in July 2013, after Proposition 8 was overturned and same-sex unions resumed in California.

“Malcolm lives on in our hearts and minds through the wise words and courageous example he has shared with us through the years,” Bruno, bishop of the six-county diocese, said Friday in a statement. “We pray in thanksgiving for Malcolm’s life and ministry, for his tireless advocacy for civil rights, and for his faithful devotion to Jesus who now welcomes him to eternal life and comforts us in our sense of loss.” 

In his later years, Boyd was writer-in-residence at the Cathedral Center of St. Paul. He also worked as a chaplain for AIDS patients and helped to establish a gay history archive at USC.

He continued to write. In a 2014 Huffington Post column, he asked, in his down-to-earth style, for a chat with Pope Francis about religious discrimination against gay people.

"Is this asking too much?" he wrote. "Pope Francis, are you on board?

"I'd like to spend a reflective evening with you, send out for a pizza from a great place near the Vatican, open a bottle of Chianti, put our feet up, relax, and share thoughts and aspirations."

RIP another good priest.

Let's move on..... but doesn't look like we will

I just wrote to Warren Entsch about  marriage equality

Dear Warren

I am an Anglican priest and stand in awe of your commitment to promote the cause of marriage equality even against the strident views of the Prime Minister, which I would suggest are more in touch with conservative Roman Catholicism than the view of the people. 

I would, and do, regard myself as a conservative and orthodox  Christian; this does not preclude my agreeing with you about the justice of this issue.

And this email is really to let you know (as I am sure you already do) that not all Christians think Marriage Equality is wrong. 

I am sure that this will eventually pass into law. The Church, sadly in my opinion, will struggle with this for some what longer. I would happily marry a same-sex couple tomorrow! (even today!) but the laws of our Church are slow to catch up.

In my congregation ( a city congregation in Adelaide) there are a number of people who are same-sex attracted. One couple, much loved by us all, has been in a stable relationship for over 40 years.

My impression is that most middle of the road Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, & Uniting Church people  and many others  even Baptists and Churches of Christ folk…..long to love and allow love to prevail.

The ‘conservatives’ in all traditions will try to tell us otherwise.

Frankly the secular community couldn’t care less about the irrelevancies of the various religious bodies' internal machinations; 

So stick in there!

Stephen

Stephen Clark

frstephenclark@gmail.com

0407718786

stephenclarks.blogspot.com.au

#marriageequality THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

A letter appeared through Sydney's (Roman) Catholic Diocese this week
(Offensive letter see here)
I take some exception to its purporting ( or seeking to purport) to speak on behalf of all religious people about marriage equality.

Please note it uses the pejorative terminology "same-sex marriage" ( see a previous blog) rather than the eirenic  term 'marriage equality'

This letter should at least begin " Dear Mr Abbot: As leaders IN (sic) some religious groups...." 

This is a partisan, incomplete and non-representative group of individual religious leaders! (It could not be otherwise!)
To tackle the presumption in my particular denomination for example:
The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney,  is NOT the "leader" of Australian Anglicans.  It is quite clear that though he may speak for a number, particularly Conservative Evangelicals, he does not ( and cannot presume to) speak for all / most Anglicans. 

He is NOT the Primate. And Evangelical Anglicanism does not typify the views of many, if not most Australian Anglicans in the 21st Century

I am interested to note that a number of mainstream Christian Churches  have obviously chosen to not identify with this . Equally well, moderate Jewish and Islamic traditions are not represented.  The Buddhist and Hindu traditions are not there. Where are the indigenous voices, and the Maori and South Pacific traditions
It will be the case (unfortunately) that we will continue to struggle with this in Churches, long after the rest of the world has got over it!

Misleading, subtle, or downright confusing language

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the marriage equality discussion is duplicitous.
You might note that I, and others,  always strive to us the expression
MARRIAGE EQUALITY
rather than
Gay Marriage
or Same Sex Marriage.
There is quite a lot of philosophical differences that are contained in these terminologies
It might well be  added that those who oppose marriage equality, consistently and deliberately use the terminology Gay Marriage or slightly less controversially Same Sex Marriage .  Make no mistake, this is deliberate.
There is an insidious side to this, because what it is doing is appealing to homophobia.
No one, presumably objects to "equality" but people do object to Gay don't they?
Pay attention to who uses what terminology!

I was likewise aware that the so called  Islamic State...ISIS, was using the word "State" to give itself an authenticity that clearly it lacks.....but deeply desires.
It is not a State, by any reckoning of the International law. But it took the world a while to wake up that it should stop calling it "Islamic State"
The ever-heavy-handed PM of Australia insisted on referring to it as "A Death Cult". I am inclined to think that by so doing he gave it an authenticity that we could well have done without. He seems to have stopped doing it!
(Might I say I have "linked" A Abbott, above, in a way that also demonstrates how words are not neutral! Perhaps rather to make the point)
Most people don't get the import of Semiotics....the use of pictures, words and signs.  The average sociologist would suggest  it is a damn sight more important than we imagine. We believe what we read, see, and hear....sometimes in a most irrational way

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!

Another year- get a move on...there's more to review!

Adelaide had a great Fringe...and we just went to things spontaneously. It was a good way to do it, and I am looking forward to this year's particularly since we will be having a series at St Mary Mags (3 entertaining music afternoons Sundays 1, 8 & 15 March)

Lots of interesting questions about the blogosphere, is the traditional West (of which I count Australia a part) got any right to regard itself as "Christian"...the evidence is thin on the ground. Most people I come into contact with are  now happy or perhaps "brave enough" to identify as non-religious. I think this is probably better than pretending to be a Christian when most/many people have not the faintest idea of what that might mean.

The great political diversion was same-sex marriage. Perhaps better and more happily styled "marriage equality".  I hope we are moving to a society where everyone has the opportunity to make a lifelong commitment, if that is what they feel called to.
I personally feel that children (who are often the weapons used in this discussion) benefit not by the gender of the adults who care for them.....but benefit by having two people who commit themselves to see that they have support for growth in education, emotional growth and indeed humanity!
If two women (and many do) decide to parent children they are likely to do a good job.  I would like to have had two mothers!
I also think it is possibly a bit harder for men, (because we are not too bright!)  but certainly have encountered relationships in the last year of men who are deeply committed to their children, grandchildren and stable family life. Indeed the gay men I know best have been in relationships of 2, 3 & 4 decades...even Barrowman (who got married in 2013......) has been in a relationship for 20+ years.

But as I say all this is a diversion!

More about (what is now better referred to as ) marriage equality

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!

Faintly amusing...if it wasn't for the fact that Ministers of the Crown think of themselves as princes!

I wrote to 'Senator' Abetz about the forthcoming push to get the Liberal party room to have a conscience vote about same sex marriage

He (allegedly) replied:

*Dictated by Senator Abetz and sent in his absence

 Dear Dr (sic) Clark,

 Thank you for your email regarding same-sex marriage.

For my part, I firmly believe that the institution of marriage is one that has been uniquely, over the centuries, the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others for life.  I also believe it is the best environment in which to raise children. This is a bedrock institution of our society that I fully support and I do not support any efforts to make changes to this definition.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this matter.

Yours sincerely


Eric Abetz
Leader of the Government in the SenateMinister for EmploymentMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public ServiceLiberal Senator for Tasmania

---------------

I replied ( this at least allowed me to vent that I am not convinced this is a genuine reply

(Please note that in my original email I informed you that my title was Fr (Father) not Dr….but that your automatic answering system doesn’t allow for my proper title!)

Thanks anyway for your reply. I thank you indeed  for bothering to reply( many of your your colleagues don’t bother)…but would respectfully disagree with your assertions  that “the institution of marriage is one that has been uniquely, over the centuries, the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others for life.”

It is clear for example, even from the Hebrew-Christian Biblical narratives ( to which I adhere) that marriage is not so concisely or conveniently defined. As religious people we struggle with this.

The Hebrew Scriptures in particular point to a plurality of practice. The Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) for example, appear to have practised polygamy and concubinage. There are numerous stories throughout the Hebrew Scriptures ( the prophet Hosea, the great King David…and so on ) where their marriage ‘practice’ has been anything approaching monogamy.

From sociological perspectives, (my area of academic discipline) it is also quite clear that some cultures have practised polygamy, polyandry, and there are also a number of cultures where people who today we might call ‘transgender’ have been accepted and celebrated.It is simply naïve, arrogant (two curiously Western characteristics don’t you think?) and nonsensical to suggest that the Western pattern of, say, the last 50 years is the one and only definitive pattern by which we can and should live our lives.

I serve (and choose to serve) a community which is pluralistic and loving, who want children to grow up in stable families. There are families with children, where both parents are of the same gender.  And some where they are of a different gender.There are men who have committed themselves to each other. And women likewise! There are of course men and women  in loving relationships.   Almost everyone I know has at least one person in their family who is same-sex-attracted
As a Christian and a priest I want to do everything I possibly can to provide for children to grow up with parents who love them.I want people to live lives  in which they don’t feel guilty for just being who they are.

It seems to me that if the State can encourage the parents of children to live in committed relationships…then they should.  It is not the gender that is important. It is the commitment, to the relationship. To the family. To the children.I think everyone has this right. To be a committed parent; and to have parents who will commit themselves to their well being. What, on earth, does this have to do with gender?

Stephen

Didn't really think Abetz's response would be otherwise

Struggles of the Church

I am pleased to subscribe to the Dean/Provost of Glasgow's blog.

He talks here of how badly the Episcopal Church in Scotland is dealing with the issue of same-sex relationships
I make my reply:

‘Twas ever so!
I am a priest of the Australian Anglican Church, in the relatively conservative (what used to be ) Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Adelaide.
I blogged a bit about some “safe space” conversations our Diocesan Synod held a couple of years ago (http://stephenclarks.blogspot.com.au/search?q=safe+space). It was one of the most mishandled experiences I have ever had.
I have never seen the conservative evangelicals come out in such force.
One session after a traditional evangelical position was put, and then a liberal catholic place enunciated, was supposed to be a “pastoral response” from a psychologist priest who could not help but state his view that homosexual practice was unbiblical. [This rather limited his capacity to be able to pastorally respond!]
To then witness the Precentor of the Cathedral rip into him was a wonder to behold. How can a loving Church condemn people to hell so easily? And so ignore the real injustices of our society…poverty, refugees, homelessness, racial prejudice…….to name but a view of the sinister things that permeate Australian society.
My own personal victory came from the sense that at least one of the curates of the Diocesan evangelical mega-parish seemed to twig that poverty was more serious ….much more serious…than who has sex with whom!
I was left feeling that those of us who have a catholic view that means that God loves everybody….even if we are not conservative, straight, gay, black or white…you name it; are fighting an uphill battle against a legalistic Protestantism that is more interested in keeping the middle class intact.
WWJD…..I am totally convinced that J would not be at middle class preach Fest in the Adelaide Hills!

I personally think the Australian Church is sh&t scared of debating homosexuality. Its bishops have become Laodiceans (Rev 3:14-15).

My great sadness after these “safe space” discussions was that someone said to me of a person who had been in a small (20+!!!!) discussion group who clearly identified herself as a gay woman….”Oh we haven’t seen her in Church for 3 or 4 weeks”

God help the Church. Because the Church can’t help itself

The bothersome world of same sex parents

I wonder if the world is bothering us at the moment.

I know two men who are in a committed relationship to each other. They have decided that they could become parents. I have mixed feelings about this.

My ‘mixed feelings’ are that:

• this is not how it happens, these two men would both appear to be moral and responsible. They happen to be what today we call ‘gay’! (I don’t really like the terminology, it is casual and inaccurate) but two men can’t have a child in their own right.

On the other hand, and particularly being a parent myself I also think:

• shouldn’t any mature adult be allowed to experience the privilege of parenthood

These two guys would seem to be potentially responsible parents holding down well paying jobs, and indeed one would even suggest they are ‘socially conservative’ (more so than me!).  They are well-educated and can provide well for their children (they plan to adopt two babies)

I am still of two minds 

BUT I also think this bothersome world does not put everything in my control (thank goodness!)

Others will make decisions which don’t necessarily conform to the narrowness of my world view...again “Thank goodness!”

SO my response is to do what I can to support these two people in their desire to be parents.

When it all boils down to it no one, not even a royal family, can provide a perfect environment into which a child might be born.  We do what we can with what we have got. And that is part of the mystery and the grace that God has committed to the human race.

No human situation is perfect. Let’s do what we can, I suggest, to support all those who find themselves in the position...however they get there....to enjoy the privilege of parenthood!

Weasel words

The Scottish Church writes about Civil partnerships (here)
I reckon this is an advance…but it is not straightforward!  For heavens sake, you Bishops stop being so pathetic. Start aligning yourselves on the side of right…and not on the defensive!!
I long for the day when we will affirm that there will be no difference between the way we treat gay and straight people
And that Bishops might feel free to go to what ever functions they like!
I am 61, and I have decided "Bugger it!" (I am an Australian after all) I am going to do what I think is right. There must be some privileges in getting old. If the Bishop (of Adelaide) wants to take me to the High Court and contest my tenure for contesting his discriminatory and arbitratory rules (about classing same-sec unions and/or marrying same-sex couples) then so be it,   let him do so!

I'm glad, I'm glad....yes I'm really glad!

The ACT has passed same-sex marriage legislation.
Perhaps we should call it something else.....equal marriage, justice for all, perhaps even .."let's punish everyone!"
It remains to be seen how all this will fall out.
Australian Governments have not been good at allowing Territories (as opposed to States) to forge their own way. Quelling euthanasia legislation. Will they now crush same-sex-marriage? They seem less likely so to do.
In the meantime some will squeak in.Good look to them!

Call for leadership

News that the House of Commons (UK) has passed draft legislation about same sex marriage will thrill some and chill others.
I am pleased, though I don't think it goes far enough, and lets the Churches off the hook. I am not suggesting that anyone in any religious position should be compelled  to perform ceremonies they cannot in all conscience perform...but it is my understanding that  even those Anglican clergy (like myself) who could happily, gladly and conscientiously officiate at such wedding will not be permitted to do so. That's a pity but there you go.
What is noteworthy is the role PM David Cameron has played in this debate.  Almost all commentators are suggesting that it is his moderate but definite leadership that has tipped the balance.
And some suggest that this will be at some personal political cost to himself.
I am personally disappointed that Prime Minister Gillard has not chosen to exercise any sort of leadership in this area. This is one of a number of issues that it would appear the Labor Party has become too politically conservative about. Presumably out of fear of political backlash.
This would also go for refugee  policy, inadequate resourcing of education, and patronising attitdes towards indigenous Australians.
 I for one regret that far from being "left of centre", the Labor Party is clearly right of centre and the conservatives just further right again.
No one is particularly surprised that Mr Abbott is declaring strong opposition. And I am more impressed by the Malcolm Turnbull's of this world who would seem to have some courage in their convictions

Just imagine

Today (Sat 11 August ) there have been a number of rallies country-wide in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.
During the week I have thought how useful it might be for us to engage in some imagining.
Imagine, for example, that the reason procreative marriage is so important has its roots (sic) historically not in some existential verity but  in the fact that communities are flimsy. And dependent on the succession of generations

This is very obvious in the Old Testament, the patriarch Abraham longs for descendants as numerous as the stars and as uncountable as the sand grains on the beach. This in fact is the promise of God to him.
It is an idea that has entranced me about my own family.
(Though we appear to be stalled in the next generation ....I am sure this won't last for ever...and any way there are already great nieces and nephews and I am an unashamed and proud patriarch!)

You don't have to wholeheartedly accept this idea, but it is not beyond the bounds of credibility that tenuous communities worried about their survival would feel that it is important that numbers increase .
It was important to have sons and daughters. Sex was about and for procreation. [This would seem to be, by and large, the Roman Catholic Church's position about the purpose of marriage]

This is of course has a certain truth about it,  but also not so urgent. Communities are (by and large) not on the edge of extinction.  It is no longer  necessary to breed ourselves into existence. Rather the reverse.
We are in danger in various parts of the world, not the least in our fragile continent, of threatening our delicate world with too many people.
So let's imagine, what seems to be scientifically obvious. There is no longer a breeding imperative!

Let us also imagine that we are now mature enough to recognise that the human being is a sexual being.
If modern psychology has taught us nothing else it is that sex is not shameful, rude, or embarrassing ...but rather that it is key to our human identity. The human being is a sexual being.
Psychology would tell us that to be a whole person we need sexual fulfilment (along with a whole lot of other things...emotional, creative, spiritual, physical, intellectual...) but certainly the healthy person will have a mature and healthy sexuality.
Now we don't have to imagine very hard what we now know.
Our world is almost full and sex doesn't particularly (or at all) require us to generate children.
BUT, the human being is a sexual being. And some human beings are not sexually attracted to members of the other sex.
No one should be being denied a healthy sexual relationship.
They can choose such....but where do we get the idea that God requires celibacy for the homosexual.
Indeed to do so is to actually say you are not to be a full person.
So we play games
The Catholic Church has promoted this long untenable proposition that sex can only be about making babies.
Life, touch, sex education, the Pill, psychology etc. etc. tells us that sex is good and no one need to not be sexual.
BUT some people will not be having sex with the opposite gender!  They are just not made that way.


Let us honour the fact that men and women, women and women, men and men,  women and men will also say "I commit!" to another person . Just imagine

Does it matter?

I have had  a number of conversations with people about same-sex marriage in the last week.
It often devolves to the LCD (lowest common denominator) aren't there more important things to get agitated about? The answer is Yes!
I actually think that the plight of homeless kids, suicide amongst rural men, and the awful deaths at sea of those trying to get to Australia are all "more important".
BUT, is it either/or?
The truth is that the human being is wonderful  and  is capable of doing more than one thing at once!
In the crude Americanism...we can chew gum and walk at the same time!
Doing the right thing by refugees, putting more resources into caring for the homeless, and supporting rural guys should all be done.
And I want to say, that doing the right thing by gay families is also important.
The truth of this seems self-evident....some people are gay!  Shock! horror!
As a Christian I want also to say God is love not hate!
God does not hate anyone...despite what Westboro Baptist Church wants to tell us...it is clear to me that the Lord Jesus Christ would have been proud to say that he didn't care (I would use another cruder expression) about people's sexuality. ( I am well aware that many of my sisters and brothers think otherwise )
I want to say....by their very nature, families are really mixed up...the 'normal' family is really hard to define.
Mum, Dad & 2.3 kids seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I want to encourage families to be as stable as they can.
Because families are all mixed up...some even have two same-sex parents, some have only one,  some are blended (and that's really difficult)  let's not make it more difficult than it is.
I want to encourage as much stability as I can.
Seems to me if two women or two men are prepared to commit to each other...then I want to do what I can to support commitment.
Better, in relationships, to encourage stability and commitment
For the kids we can only say "Hear! Hear!"

Cwm Rhondda!

The Archbishop of Wales who is, of course, a very senior Anglican churcxh leader makes some pertinent observations in the Independent (see here)

The Archbishop of Wales has publicly called on Anglicans to support gay civil marriages arguing that the church’s record on equality has made homosexual men and women often feel “unwanted, unloved and sinful”.

Dr Barry Morgan made his comments during an impassioned plea for Anglicans to be more tolerant towards homosexuals during a meeting of the church’s governing body in Llandudno.

He is one of just a handful of senior Anglican clergymen to publicly come out in favour of extending civil marriage rights. Most bishops who have spoken publicly since the government began consultations on gay marriage have voiced vehement opposition to the plans.

Recognising that he was “entering minefield” by bringing up the subject Dr Morgan said: “We have to acknowledge that the record of the church in its dealings with same sex issues has not been good."

He added: "The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support?”

The 64-year-old bishop took over as head of the church in Wales when his predecessor Rowan Williams was promoted to Archbishop of Canterbury. He has long been known as a stalwart liberal within the upper echelons of the church and a strong supporter of allowing women clergy to become bishops.

Other senior church figures who have come out in favour of gay marriage include Nick Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries.

The bulk of Dr Morgan’s speech centred around how the church should not be afraid to talk about and debate the competing theological arguments surrounding gay marriage, even though the current government proposals only effect civil marriages and will not force religious organisations to conduct weddings for same sex couples.

However he called on his church to support the government’s desire to allow gay men and women to marry in a civil environment. "If the legislation to allow civil marriage is passed, I cannot see how we as a church, will be able to ignore the legality of the status of such partnerships and we ought not to want to do so,” he said.

He painted a damning portrait of what kind of welcome gay men and women say they receive from the church.

“Gays and lesbians claim they are still treated as second-class citizens, tolerated at best and vilified at worst,” he said. “Very often homosexuality is talked about as if real people were not involved and gays and lesbians complain of being talked about rather than talked to in Church.”

He added: “The real question is, how do we hold together faithfulness to scripture and tradition with the wider New Testament call to love our neighbour? If the moral aim of the gospel is to encourage love of neighbours, how can that happen when people are made to feel unwanted, unloved, and sinful? How is the gospel good news for homosexuals?”

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which follows a theological line dictated by the Vatican, the Church of England is filled with Bishops who hold a variety of views on controversial topics such as homosexuality and the consecration of women bishops. When Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales he was regarded as a liberal who backed greater equality for gay men and women. However during his time as Archbishop of Canterbury, a post he will retire from later this year, he became increasingly aligned with conservatives backing down over the appointment of Britain’s first openly gay bishops and supporting demands for opt out clauses for dioceses that refused to be served by a female bishops

Online polls

I was more than bemused to see that stupid little survey "Voteline" (usually on the second letters page of the Advertiser) a few days ago.
It was about marriage equality and it said 700+ were opposed to same-sex marriage and only 20 or 30 were in favour.
How can this be? Particularly since almost every other poll for the last three years has told us that at least 66%...and up to 75% and more are IN FAVOUR of same-sex marriage.
Well, of course, it is the mad methodology. I have blogged about this before (see here for one (but not the only) example)
Yesterday's poll (for example) about the very serious question "Should the Reserve Bank drop interest rates?"   49% of people said yes...and 51% said no. Wow!

Now 49% (on this occasion) was actually 24 phone calls! And 51% was 25 calls!
How can this be? There were over 700 phone calls about same-sex marriage!
Ahh yes, I get it now. Vested interest. Swamping.

It rather exposes how this "Voteline" methodology is fundamentally flawed. It tells us that there in no control (a fundamental concept in statistical analysis), because there is nothing to stop vested interests 'swamping' the protest.
My dear former student D de L was no doubt pretty active, along with his FOL colleagues
It is ALWAYS the case that when the questions have a strong political dimension, either Leftist or Rightist, then the number of phone calls increases dramtically. Not usually up to 700+....but it's the same phenomenon I suggest

Of course there are now all sorts of important polls online. One is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy & Legal Affairs survey on the two Marriage Equality Acts (2 Amendments: Bandt and Jones at the 2nd reading stage)
If you would like to fill this in then go here  https://www.surveymk.com/s/spla-marriage
I mention this because there was some concern from one group I belong to that there was 'swamping' going on.  This (as I said above) is the great flaw in the methodology.
They were encouraging marriage equality supporters to fill in the survey...this is allegedly attempting to redress a balance, but is of course also skewing the results.

A few of my more Churchy readers may also be interested to know that I have also filled out the Crown Nominations Commission Advisory  quiz about the next Archbishop of Canterbury! (see here)...it says

" In the past only Primates and Provincial Secretaries of the Anglican Communion have had this opportunity"
and indeed it also says
"Cette opportunité était auparavant réservée aux Primats de la Communion anglicane." & "En tiempos pasados solamente han tenido esta oportunidad los primados de la Comunión Anglicana:" & "No passado, apenas primazes e secretários provinciais da Comunhão Anglicana tiveram essa oportunidade"


(interesting that the French and the Spanish only refer to the Primates/Primats/ and do not make reference to the provincial secretaries!!  as do the English and the Portuguese)


Does at least tell us something about the cosmopolitan nature of the Anglican Communion/Communion Anglicane/Comunión Anglicana/Comunhão Anglicano....one would also want to add various other languages...Swahili/Korean/Japanese/Mandarin/Cantonese/Arabic/Melanesian/Australian(!)/ u.s.w.....


I suggested that it was a pity that such a catholic Communion was not looking beyond the British Isles for the leader of this polyglot Church!