What Slippery Slope? Things they said would never happen!

Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow with their long-distance twins Dallas and Jasper. They now have five children through surrogate mothers
Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow with their long-distance twins Dallas and Jasper. They now have five children through surrogate mothers

From the Daily Mail

Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church

The first legal challenge to the Church of England’s ban on same-sex marriage was launched today – months before the first gay wedding can take place.

Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: ‘I want to go into my church and marry my husband.’ He added: ‘The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.’

The legal move means an early test for David Cameron’s promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful.

Ministers set down a ‘quadruple lock’ in the new same sex marriage law – which received Royal Assent last month – which is supposed to protect those churches which oppose gay marriage.

However the guarantees will have to be tested in the courts and gay rights groups have been expecting to bring an early challenge.

Mr Drewitt-Barlow and his civil partner Tony have been a celebrated couple since 1999, when they became the first gay couple to be named on the birth certificate of a child. They now have five children through surrogate mothers.

He said : ‘We need to convince the church that it is the right thing for our community for them to recognise us as practising Christians.

‘I am a Christian – a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.’ Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42, who owns a surrogacy company based near the family home in Essex and is opening another in Los Angeles, added: ‘If I was a Sikh I could get married at the Gurdwara. Liberal Jews can marry in the Synagogue – just not the Christians.

‘It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.

He said it was a shame that he and his partner were being forced to take Christians to court to get them to recognise them, but he said the new law did not give them what they have been campaigning for.

Barrie holds his newborn daughter, Saffron, at a hospital in Modesto, California in 1999

Mr Drewitt-Barlow, who took out a civil partnership in 2006, added: ‘It is like someone giving me a sweetie with the wrapper on and telling me to suck it.’ Under the Government’s same-sex marriage law, which is expected to lead the first gay wedding next summer, churches must legally opt in before they can conduct same-sex ceremonies.

Those that hold objections to gay marriage have been told the quadruple lock will prevent the courts from forcing them to stage gay weddings against the conscience of priests and most congregations.
The lock says that no religious organisation could be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.

It would be unlawful for ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation’s governing body has opted into provisions for doing so. The Equality Act 2010 would be amended to ensure no discrimination claim could be brought against religious organisations for refusing to marry a same-sex couple.

The new law also states that it no religious organisation could be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises. It would be unlawful for ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation’s governing body has opted into provisions for doing so. The Equality Act 2010 would be amended to ensure no discrimination claim could be brought against religious organisations for refusing to marry a same-sex couple.

The law also states that it is illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples.

The CofE is also protected by its own internal canon laws, which are part of the law of land, which say marriages must be between a man and a woman.

However a succession of past court cases have resulted in defeats for Christians who were in disputes over equality laws, and in particular courts have always found in favour of gays who have challenged Christians.

Under the Government's same-sex marriage law, which is expected to lead the first gay wedding next summer, churches must legally opt in before they can conduct same-sex ceremoniesUnder the Government’s same-sex marriage law, which is expected to lead the first gay wedding next summer, churches must legally opt in before they can conduct same-sex ceremonies

In recent years notable cases have ended in the sacking of a town hall registrar who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, the sack for a Relate counsellor who said he would not give sex advice to gay couples, and defeat for a couple who declined to let a room in their hotel to a gay couple on the grounds that they were unmarried.

Colin Hart, of the Coalition for Marriage said: ‘The ink’s not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation. We warned Mr Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn’t possibly keep.

‘He didn’t listen. He didn’t care. He’s the one who has created this mess. Mr Cameron’s chickens are coming home to roost and it will be ordinary people with a religious belief who yet again fall victim to the totalitarian forces of political correctness.’

Mr Hart added: ‘We now face the real prospect of churches having to choose between stopping conducting weddings, or vicars, and priests defying the law and finding themselves languishing in the dock.’


86 thoughts on “What Slippery Slope? Things they said would never happen!

  1. I for one like the idea of the church getting out of the wedding game; it wasn’t a part of the early churches role. The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. When the Empire became Christian under Constantine, Christian emperors continued the imperial control of marriage, as the Code of Justinian makes clear.

    When the Empire faltered in the West, church courts took up the role of legal adjudicator of valid marriages. But there was still no special religious meaning to the institution. As the best scholar of sacramental history, Joseph Martos, puts it: “Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.”

    Marriage is no more Christian than eating or farting

  2. From The Delaware Libertarians comes this very interesting account of the variety and history of marriages…the church being involved in marriage is only a relatively ‘recent’ a phenomenon, and the idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman and that it is ordained by God is laid bare as the misappropriation of history by this article (I apologise for the length of it):

    A few disturbing historical facts about marriage that seem to have escaped some of our friends

    David Anderson’s original post on same-sex marriage, Here Comes the Groom, and donviti’s My Retort to Stupidity, have drawn between them well over 150 comments. This post won’t do that (I think a high-traffic post is one that draws more than five comments), but I wanted to correct the statement that David Anderson made regarding the universality of the modern Christian form of marriage. David said,

    The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality. It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another. We call it marriage. It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.

    Marriage over different cultures has different variations. Some have more than two partners. Some are exclusive for life. Some have an escape valve. Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is not open for judicial guessing.

    Later, it becomes clearly evident that what David is promoting is the idea that traditional Christian marriage is the approved form, as he introduces the “spiritual” component:

    The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people. Everything done in the past was not based upon the wisdom built up as we went from herding nomads to farmers to manufacturers to information engineers. It is based upon prejudice and discrimination. The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.

    I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left. I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite.

    First, we need to realize that marriage–even in the Judeo-Christian tradition–has had many variations, such as Levirate marriage:

    Levirate is the practice of a woman marrying one of her husband’s sons or brothers after her husband’s death, in order to continue his line. Levirate has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage outside the clan was forbidden. Groups that have practiced levirate include the Israelites, the Xiongnu, the Mongols, and the Tibetans.

    Nor is Western Civilization the only civilization struggling over the definition of marriage, as evidenced by India’s Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929:

    It is note worthy that a contravention of the provisions of the Act does not render the marriage invalid as the validity of the marriage is a subject beyond the scope of the Act. A marriage under the Hindu Law by a minor male is valid even though the marriage was not brought about on his behalf by the natural or lawful guardian. The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and not a contract. The minority of an individual can operate as a bar to his or her incurring contractual obligations, but it cannot be an impediment in the matter of performing a necessary “Sanskara”. A minor’s marriage without the consent of the guardian can be held to be valid on the application of the doctrine of factum valet.

    The maximum penalty for violating this law? A three-month prison sentence and a small fine, but the marriage itself remained legitimate (and the act specifically did not apply in Kashmir and Jammu).

    Then, of course, there’s the widespread (both in historical and geographic terms) of Polyandry (marriage of a woman to more than one man):

    According to inscriptions describing the reforms of the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash (ca. 2300 BC), he is said to have abolished the former custom of polyandry in his country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written.

    Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in Tibet, the Canadian Arctic, Zanskar, Nepal, Bhutan, Ladakh, the Nymba, and Sri Lanka, and is known to have been present in some pre-contact Polynesian societies, though probably only among higher caste women. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practiced in several cultures in India — in the Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, among the, Nairs, Theeyas and Toda of South India, and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh. The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance. In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law. Non-fraternal polyandry is extremely rare and is marked by violence. There are no known indigenous communities that currently practice polyandry involving unrelated males.

    The Hebrew Bible prohibits polyandry. For a woman to have sexual relations when she is married to another (which would include a situation such as polyandry) would constitute adultery, with the consequences that it would have on her status, as well as of her children from that relationship.

    Islam also bans polyandry.

    Important issues to note here: (1) Polyandry pre-dates the Old Testament and is prohibited by it; (2) yet exists as a custom and law in multiple societies.

    Modern Western-European-style marriage, with its strange history of being intertwined between law and sacrament, church and state, emerged only with the Council of Trent in 1563:

    In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed (see also Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)), concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnesses — although the lack of a requirement for parental consent ended a debate that had proceeded from the twelfth century. In the case of a divorce, the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party is alive, even if the other may have committed adultery.

    Basic rule of thumb: governments and churches do not bother to legislate against things people are not doing. Thus we can reasonably infer (and scholars have backed this up with research) that the following existed in Europe pre-Trent: (1) marriages not solemnized by a priest; (2) adultery was commonly considered a justification for divorce; (3) that there had been a mixture of civil and canon law with variant definitions of precisely what marriage was.

    What did the Council of Trent replace? The Justinian Code–an earlier Christian formulation. Even Christian scholars and writers admitted that other forms of marriage had pre-existed monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and it is also clear that it is the influence of Christianity that caused the Roman Empire to outlaw variant forms of marriage:

    In the Christian tradition, a “one man one woman” model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD) with his published letter The Good of Marriage. To discourage polygamy, he wrote it “was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.” (chapter 15, paragraph 17) Sermons from St. Augustine’s letters were popular and influential. In 534 AD Roman Emperor Justinian criminalized all but monogamous man/woman sex within the confines of marriage. The Justinian Code was the basis of European law for 1,000 years.

    Opponents of gay marriage like to fear-monger with the speculation that same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying sheep, or other such perversions. They clearly have not sampled the historical variety of marriage in different cultures, which includes marrying plants (!), ghosts, and corpses:

    Some parts of India follow a custom in which the groom is required to marry with an auspicious plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome inauspicious predictions about the health of the husband. This also applies if the prospective wife is considered to be ‘bad luck’ or a ‘bad omen’ astrologically. However, the relationship is not consummated and does not affect their ability to remarry later. One should note that this is not a norm found across the entire Indian sub-continent.

    In the state of Kerala, India, the Nambudiri Brahmin caste traditionally practiced henogamy, in which only the eldest son in each family was permitted to marry. The younger children could have sambandha (temporary relationship) with Kshatriya or Nair women. This is no longer practiced, and in general the Nambudiri Brahmin men marry only form the Nambudiri caste and Nair women prefer to be married to Nair men.

    In Mormonism, a couple may seal their marriage “for time and for all eternity” through a “sealing” ceremony conducted within LDS Temples. The couple is then believed to be bound to each other in marriage throughout eternity if they live according to their covenants made in the ceremony. Mormonism also allows living persons to act as proxies in the sealing ceremony to “seal” a marriage between ancestors who have been dead for at least one year and who were married during their lifetime. According to LDS theology, it is then up to the deceased individuals to accept or reject this sealing in the spirit world before their eventual resurrection. A living person can also be sealed to his or her deceased spouse, with another person (of the same sex as the deceased) acting as proxy for that deceased individual.

    Other unusual variations include marriage between a living human and a ghost (Taiwan), a living human and a recently-deceased human with whom they were emotionally involved (France), and between a human being and God (Catholic and Orthodox monasticism). Again, these lack the social meaning of ordinary marriage and belong rather to the realm of religion or (in the case of weddings of dogs to other dogs, Kermit the Frog to Miss Piggy, and the like) pure spectacle.

    One society that traditionally did without marriage entirely was that of the Na of Yunnan province in southern China. According to anthropologist Cia Hua, sexual liaisons among the Na took place in the form of “visits” initiated by either men or women, each of whom might have two or three partners each at any given time (and as many as two hundred throughout a lifetime). The nonexistence of fathers in the Na family unit was consistent with their practice of matrilineality and matrilocality, in which siblings and their offspring lived with their maternal relatives. In recent years, the Chinese state has encouraged the Na to acculturate to the monogamous marriage norms of greater China. Such programs have included land grants to monogamous Na families, conscription (in the 1970s, couples were rounded up in villages ten or twenty at a time and issued marriage licenses), legislation declaring frequent sexual partners married and outlawing “visits”, and the withholding of food rations from children who could not identify their fathers. Many of these measures were relaxed in favor of educational approaches after Deng Xiaoping came into power in 1981.

    Point being: if you’re going to make an argument for or against a certain definition of marriage, and you’re also going to state that your definition is the one sanctioned by history and nature, then you’d best do your homework.

    Social conservatives are notorious for not doing theirs.

  3. Of course this was going to happen. And if this couple don’t win, the gay hordes and their insane supporters will keep going until they get what they want.

    The fact that this couple can still exist in a church and think they are living an acceptable life as Christians shows the pathetic state of some churches.

    Yes, many Christians are basically morbidly evil or just insane. I look on the internet thinking I’ll stop reading this rot and someone posts something to do with marriage and brings up the point that in some countries people marry ghosts so …….

    people will bring up any nonsense to justify this foolishness.

    Men, you were not made to marry a man. It’s simple. Men marrying men is insanity.

    The Delaware Libertarians???? Go marry some ghosts.

    Gay marriage is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. Almost as crazy as marrying a ghost or a robot.

    Christians, just repent.

  4. You can’t see that marriage has only recently become a church issue? That it has historically been about property and power? The church used to have same sex ‘brotherhood’ ceremonies (read same sex marriage)…Q just saying men were not made to marry men does not make it so – we were not made for anything, we are biologically built for reproducing, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage

  5. Just because you are a Christian, dosent mean you have a right to discriminate. Why should religious organisations be the only ones in our society that have the right to reject people for employment or services based only on whether they approve of their lifestyle?

    Churches get huge subsidies from the state in the form of tax exemptions and grants. Yet they are still allowed to reject someone for employment based on their marital status, their beliefs or who they love. This is not acceptable in a modern society. Either follow the expectations of fairness in society or go to the fringes and stop taking the king’s coin.

  6. I totally agree Ewan – stop taking tax breaks and expecting to get into public schools to give scripture classes just because we are the church – or if we want to still take the coin – stop marrying anyone – or marry everyone according to the laws of the land

  7. Great so let’s go back to sensible laws of the land.

    man, people dying all over the world, and these two girlie men are crying about not being able to have a lavish wedding and thinking they’re sucking on a sweetie with the wrapper on…

    Poor dears.

    Someone please send them a one way ticket to Cairo!

    Yeah, I know – girlie men is strange, but I thought nancy boys would be plagiarism.

    But this is all of course the logical progression. Give gays civil rights, then they want the right to get married. Then if that’s normal and nice and good, then they’ll expect to marry in church and then campaign until they do.

    And other Christians will support them with any kind of argument.

    What next? People wanting the right to get married to lesbian Taiwanese ghosts in church?

    Why not….after all, the church shouldn’t be …….

    OH forget it. Let me off the planet.

  8. I’ve applied the breaks – you should be able to disembark in 23 years.

    Can you read your comments and insert the word ;blacks’ for ‘gays’ does it make it sound a little disgusting?

  9. 23 years is too long. I love blacks. Btw, where is Ian Williams. They just had a big earthquake in Wellington.

    okay.
    “Gay marriage is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of”

    Let’s make that “Black marriage is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of”

    No I don’t agree with that at all. Me saying gay marriage is insane doesn’t mean at at all that I think black marriage would be insane.

    That has never been wrong and never will be.

    And no, Christianity has never been unanimous in it’s hatred of blacks.

    The black issue and the gay issue is completely different. Though, people have done and are doing their darndest to link them.

    And they’ve fooled a lot of young people. Which isn’t hard.

  10. And no, Christianity has never been unanimous in it’s hatred of blacks.

    Nor is it unanimous in its hatred of Gays!

    I didn’t say you’d think blacks marrying would be dumb, but saying blacks shouldn’t marry sounds awful doesn’t it? It should sound just as awful in your ears to hear someone say Gays shouldn’t marry; it does in mine.

  11. Well, you need to clean your ears out.

    Most blacks agree with me.

    btw, can you tell your millionaire gay friends that although they think life is jutht tho horrible and unfair (why? – because though they are married, have kids, and can have all the saxe they want, they miss out of a church wedding ceremony…..!!!!! what the?????)

    the 52 churches were torched in Egypt recently.

    I guess that doesn’t really compare to missing out of a lavish wedding though!

    Man, if those nancy boys think the Christians are unfair, wait till the Muslims take over England.

    oh by the way, if someone wants to call themselves homosexual, that’s okay. They are free to marry. Just not a man to a man.

    52 churches. Isn’t that terrible. Do you think those millionaire homosexuals could help? Or are they too busy planning the ceremony?
    Pathetic.

  12. So no-one should get married because its more important to help the churches in Egypt than to select a wedding caterer?

    The same strain of Christianity from the US that you guys seem to be following has in the past upheld laws banning marriage between blacks and whites.

    Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.
    … Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
    —Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503

    Recognise the argument? And the courts ruled in 1887 that these laws werent racist because both whites and blacks were punished equally for marrying each other. Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of their same race.

    The law banning these marriages was only repealed in South Carolina in 1998 after a referendum in which 40% opposed the change. A Southern Baptist Republican state rep argued against it saying this was “not what God intended when he separated the races back in Babylonian days.”

  13. Actually Q your argument is pathetic – according to your argument no one should be planning a wedding while Egypt is burning. Aboriginals shouldn’t have been wanting to be counted as human while Australian soldiers were dying in Vietnam. Is it becuase they ahve money that you’re so pissed off at them? And I really dont give a rats arse if most black peopoe agree with you – becuase they would be wrong. Most white people thought it was ok to ban marriage – between races…and most black people agreed with them at the time, so really your point means nothing, other than that there are a lot of black people who don;t want the same rights afforded to them to be afforded to another group of people.

  14. In fact, you miss the point of the article completely. It’s not about whether gays should or shouldn’t marry. The article was from the Daily Mail in the UK, where marriage has been granted to same-sex couples, or will be shortly.

    The controversy raised involves the argument given in the build up to the change in the law that gays would never try to force the Church to marry them through the courts.

    I said, in another thread, that it would only be a matter of time before the UK law was tested in the courts and a gay couple with financial backing would test it. I am only surprised that it has happened so quickly. I was shouted down for making this suggestion, but here it is.

    What it means for churches is that, if the court upholds the gay challenge and churches are forced to marry same sex couples, they will be made work against what for most is the Biblical principle that marriage should be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

    The gay community has already been granted so-called equal marriage, whatever that might mean, and, on the other hand, they know that the Church is bound, to a degree, by the traditional interpretation of Scripture, where Christ himself confirms that man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

    There is no Biblical reference to same sex relationships, let alone marriage, except to call them an abomination. I know you’ll be angry at me for pointing this out, but it is undeniably true from Scripture. Nowhere does it say that God has changed his mind, and all revisionist attempts at softening the blow are preaching falsehoods to the converted.

    I also know that Greg and some others on here do not hold to Scripture, which is why I haven’t bothered to comment recently, so there isn’t much point to discussing it with them at a Biblical level, which will only be shouted down, or pelted with moral equivalences.

    It is my guess that Ewan is not a Christian or he would show some understanding of the dilemma now faced by Churches in the UK over the changes in legislation, and particularly by this impending challenge through the courts.

    Greg’s straw man argument comparing race to sexual orientation is nothing whatsoever to do with the significance of what the article is saying.

    Gays in UK already have the ability to marry in the sight of the law. They are no longer being discriminated against in this regard as far as the law is concerned.

    The prejudicial distinction is now being levelled at the Church, which, to remain true to God, must be subject the Bible, and, in particular, the New Testament, and not be forced into disobeying the Bible by Parliament. That is the issue here.

    Whether the Church should be coerced by law to declare that same sex couples are married in the sight of God is the crux of the matter.

    Secondly, it is also, in effect,the new legislation itself which is being challenged.

    In UK the Church and State are not separate. The Parliament was able to grant equal marriage rights to gays by assuring the Church it would have the right to decide, according to their interpretation of Scripture, whether or not to marry gays in their churches without fear of sanction or conviction.

    Overturning this in the courts will delegitimise the new Act altogether, and may lead to a revision of the law which will overturn what the gays have won for themselves.

  15. As for Greg’s weak-kneed, roll-over-and-play-dead, give-gays-what-they-want claim that churches shouldn’t be involved in the ‘marriage game’ anyway, as he disgracefully calls it, what a brazenly cowardly perspective of a sacrament which has been part of Christian culture for centuries.

    I can hardly believe that someone who will otherwise so heartily and staunchly defend every Catholic dogma will now denounce, decry and deny Holy Matrimony its place in their Sacraments, or in the traditional culture of the Church. He’ll defend transubstantiation, Mary worship, purgatory, salvation through water baptism and the rest, but Holy Matrimony can be sent down the gurgler.

    He conveniently overlooks the first miracle of Jesus being recorded at the marriage feast in Cana.

    He completely disregards the very first prophecy recorded being that a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife as one flesh.

    He looks the other way in case it is pointed out afresh that Jesus confirmed this prophecy as valid for all time in his own words.

    He blacks out of consciousness when he is reminded that Paul advised those who are unable to control their sexual passions to marry, albeit, not to same sex partners.

    He sleeps through the reminder that the writer of Hebrews reveals that the marriage bed is undefiled, but all other sexual practices are wrong for the believer.

    And, worse of all, he completely ignores Paul’s revelation of the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church is akin to the marriage between a husband and wife.

    Don’t make Christians have to face the fury of an ungodly law or abandon the Christian principles handed down to us through Christ.

    Marry your gay partner in the sight of the law, but leave the Church out of it.

  16. Neither God nor Christianity invented marriage. Get over it. Some still like using the Word to justify bigotry.

    Maybe Ewans a better Jesus follower than u.

  17. There are parallels with sending the blacks to fight in vietnam while not allowing them equal rights.

    You can be gay and kill and be killed for your country.

    But dont ask to get married.

  18. Why would any Christian take a blind bit of notice of what you have to say, Bones? You have long since denied God and His word with your denouncement of His will.

    Yo are the king of equivalence. Why would I not expect you to agree with Greg’s preposterous comparison?

    You were one of the people who said the gays would never take the Church to court to challenge the new legislation and force churches to marry them in their sanctuaries.

    I’m losing count of how often you have been proven wrong in your arguments for the antichrist.

  19. And the issue isn’t marriage. The gays have it in UK. They can marry already, and will find some churches who will perform he ceremony.

    The issue is whether churches should be taken to court for wanting to adhere to their beliefs which may exclude gay marriage.

    You should be defending their right to have a set standard for what they consider marriage rites, whether you agree with it or not, without fear of interference from the courts or from the State.

    It’s not even a matter of secular morality or social justice, but of the right to free choice and self-governance of a religious tradition.

    Here’s a relevant equivalence for you.

    Do you think the UK government should force Islamic centres to marry gays?

  20. Why would any thinking human being take any notice of what you have to say.

    I know ministers who cant stand doing weddings. Its all about getting the piece of paper and the nice ceremony. Should churches not do gay funerals neither.

  21. Thanks, once again, for your intelligent contribution, Bones!

    Nothing to do with anything relevant to this thread.

    I take it you think churches should just toe the line of the State. Let the State rewrite the Word for us.

    You threw away the Bible long ago.

    And it shows.

  22. Bones,
    I know ministers who cant stand doing weddings. Its all about getting the piece of paper and the nice ceremony.

    So?

    You know how many ministers who can’t stand weddings? One? Two?

    If they can’t stand it they should get out. They don’t care enough for their parishioners, nor do they grasp the significance of holy matrimony.

    Most ministers I know love doing weddings because they know what it means Biblically.

  23. You dont have a grasp on what marriage is. You think a wedding presided over by a man of god is more holy.

    Divorce stats suggest otherwise.

  24. Bones,
    You think a wedding presided over by a man of god is more holy.

    Do I? What makes you think that? I don’t, actually. Marriage is marriage, whether in a civil celebrant’s office, by a village elder in a papuan village, or by whatever means a couple is united.

    That is what I mean by being married in the sight of the law, and it follows that they are married in the sight of God when they consummate their marriage. hence he marriage bed, as I have said, is undefiled.

    But. Two men having anal sex could not be said to be consummation, unless you have a very strange concept of consummation. Two women, by the very nature of their anatomy are unable to consummate anything, unless you consider the use of a false phallus consummation.

    Yes, I know all the arguments about what constitutes marriage based on love without sexual intercourse will now ensue, but we’ve been there, and it has no bearing on the issues posed in this thread.

    But saying love for another human being is enough for marriage is a straw man. I love my sister but the law would never allow me to marry her even if I wanted to. There are adults who love children. Will you allow them to marry on the basis of love? Some people love their animals to bits. Other people love so many that they can’t make their mind up which one to be with, so why not all? Others love themselves more than anyone!

    Marriage is about love, but it’s far more than this. In the sight of God it is defined as between a man and a woman. This has not changed.

    If the law of the land wants to permit men to marry men and women to marry women that is on thing, but the biblical evidence is that it will never be ratified by God. The government can recognise what it wants, and gays should be contented with this.

    But the Church, in general, does not recognise same sex marriage as being married in the sight of God. My reference was to the traditions of the Church alone, not to civil marriage in general.

    Forcing churches to marry people they do not deem married in the sight of God is an intrusion into he tenets of faith and should not become the domain of the law courts of England.

    Leave the Church alone.

  25. How far do you want to climb back up the slippery slope?

    Back to the days when Christian ministers could refuse to marry interracial couples?

    Do you support the right of the Pike County Baptist Church in Kentucky to deny membership and presumably marriage to interacial couples?

  26. The article posted was about UK law which has granted marriage to same sex couples. There will always be churches willing to marry them. Why search for one which will adhere to traditional marriage values and refuse them?

    Whether I support same sex marriage or not is not the issue. The issue raised here is whether it is right for a gay couple to sue a church for refusing to marry them, especially when they know very well they could find a minister somewhere who would perform the ceremony, and they could have all the trappings they desire. It appears they are already able to attend and have membership.

    Are you a Christian, Ewan?

  27. Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:

    A short guide to the Bill

    The main purpose of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is to allow for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales.

    What the legislation will do:

    The Bill will:
     enable same sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies;
     ensure those religious organisations which wish to do so can opt-in to marry same sex couples according to their rites;
     protect religious organisations and their representatives from legal challenge if they do not wish to marry same sex couples;
     enable civil partners to convert their partnership to a marriage, if they wish;
     enable individuals to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage, and
     require a review of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

    Structure of the Bill – The Bill consists of 19 clauses and 7 Schedules arranged as follows:

    Part 1 – Marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales

    Clause 1 makes it lawful for same sex couples to marry. It ensures that the legal duty of clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners does not extend to same sex couples. It allows same sex civil marriage ceremonies to be carried out in register offices and on approved premises (such as hotels), and marriages of same sex couples in religious buildings (other than those used by the Church of England and Church in Wales), and in accordance with the Jewish and Quaker faiths, and for overseas consular and armed forces marriages.

    Clause 2 protects individuals and organisations that do not want to conduct or participate in a religious same sex marriage ceremony. It also ensures that it is not unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 for a religious organisation or individual minister to refuse to marry a same sex couple.

    Clause 3 allows for civil marriage ceremonies for all couples in register offices and on approved premises, and for those who are house-bound or detained.

    Clause 4 with Schedule 1 allows religious marriage ceremonies of same sex couples where the governing body of the relevant religious organisation has opted in. It provides a process for the registration of places of worship so that same sex marriages can take place there, including where buildings are shared between religious organisations. It also sets out the process for appointing people authorised to attend such marriages.

    Clause 5 sets out the ‘opt-in’ process for religious same sex marriage ceremonies in
    three circumstances: in accordance with the practices of the Quakers; in a religious
    ceremony of the Jewish religion; and through a religious ceremony of any religion
    other than the Church of England or the Church in Wales for house-bound or
    detained same sex couples.

    Clause 6 allows for religious same sex marriage ceremonies in military (naval,
    military and air force) chapels. The procedure for registering these chapels will be
    set out in secondary legislation.

    Clause 7 allows the Registrar General to authorise a religious marriage of a same
    sex couple where one of the couple is seriously ill and where the governing body of
    the relevant religious organisation has consented to marriages of same sex couples.

    Clause 8 requires the Lord Chancellor to make an Order allowing the Church in
    Wales to marry same sex couples according to its rites, if the Church in Wales
    resolves to do so at some future time.

    Clause 9 allows civil partners whose partnerships were registered in England and
    Wales to have them converted into a marriage.

    Clause 10 with Schedule 2 allows for new or existing marriages of same sex
    couples entered into outside England and Wales to be recognised as marriages
    here. It also deals with how marriages of same sex couples entered into in England
    and Wales will be treated in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    Clause 11 with Schedules 3 and 4 provides an ‘equivalence’ rule that new and
    existing legislation referring to marriage will be interpreted as applying equally to
    same sex and opposite sex couples. This rule can be over-ridden by contrary
    provision where necessary.

    Part 2 – Other provisions relating to marriage and civil partnership

    Clause 12 with Schedule 5 enables a person in a marriage with someone of the
    opposite sex to preserve their marriage (if they both wish) when one of them
    changes their legal gender.

    Clause 13 with Schedule 6 enables same sex couples to get married in overseas
    consulates and on armed forces bases overseas.

    Clause 14 requires the Government to conduct a review of the operation and future
    of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in England and Wales. The review must begin as
    soon as practicable and include a full public consultation.

    Part 3 – Final provisions

    Clause 15 with Schedule 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to make orders
    facilitating the transition between the current arrangements and the new
    arrangements.

    Clause 16 sets out the powers to make secondary legislation which have been delegated to Ministers, along with the parliamentary procedures when certain powers are exercised.

    Clause 17 sets outs how certain terms used in the Bill are to be interpreted.

    Clause 18 sets out the territorial extent and application of the Bill’s provisions. Generally, the Bill affects England and Wales only, except for certain circumstances when it affects Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    Clause 19 gives the Bill’s title and enables it to be brought into force by Orders made by the Secretary of State.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212540/Short_guide.pdf

  28. I guess its like those pesky blacks who kept seeking out the stores that wouldn’t serve them. Why do it when there are plenty of other stores who are happy to have black customers?

    Trouble makers

  29. You’re quite the racist, Ewan. But this thread isn’t about race.

    When you say you’re a gay activist and not a Christian, do you intend, in your activism, to force Christians into your beliefs on marriage so that you can have a church ceremony, or merely leave it at being able to marry your partner regardless of Christian values?

    Are you proposing prosecutions for priests or ministers who refuse to marry men to men or women to women because of their beliefs? Do you think they should be sent to prison for refusing to change from their traditional stand in holy matrimony being between a man and a woman?

    Do you think a Christian priest or minister should have the right to decide who they will marry regardless of the couples gender or sexuality, including hetosexual couples, or should they marry any couple who comes to them?

    Will you apply the same legal requirements to Muslim celebrants?

  30. “So no-one should get married because its more important to help the churches in Egypt than to select a wedding caterer?#

    No, a man and a woman should feel okay about getting married.
    But two men who are already married and have adopted children (which I think I pathetic)
    don’t get my sympathy because they want to force a church to marry them.

    And yeah, I’m much more of a hardliner on this than Steve.

    I don’t agree at all with civil gay partnerships.

    Completely nuts.

    Just an aberration! It ain’t normal.

    And God did invent marriage. It was his idea.

    As for Greg saying my argument is pathetic….there is nothing more pathetic than a man wanting to want to have sex with a man and marry him.

    That’s pathetic, and sad, and well, just makes me sick.

    And to Bones? Gays killing and being killed? If a person insists on calling themselves “gay”, lays down his life for someone, that’s noble.

    But no, gay marriage is insane. But,….IF THEY MUST, get married in some wiccan ceremony. But, not in a church. Unless it’s some weirdo BOnesian, gregorian cultic apostate church.

    No, don’t even call it a church.

    And no, I don’t believe in robot marriages or marrying Taiwanese ghosts either.
    Or men marrying goats.

    Ewan, the fact that some people in some part of the world in the past who were against interracial marriage means nothing to me.

    You’ll no doubt use that tired old argument when bisexuals demand a three way marriage.
    And Bones and Greg will be right there to defend them too no doubt.

    LIke I’ve said many times, you people keep forgetting that the only countries who are for gay marriage are the post-Christian societies.

    Interesting. When you take some time off and think about why that is, you must might gain a little understanding about man and God.

    Non-Christian countries don’t understand the push for gay marriage at all.

    Makes sense to backslidden Christians who spend their days and nights attacking the church though.

    JUst repent guys and follow Jesus and you’ll come to your senses. Unless you are just too far gone.

  31. Q,
    I am not the slightest bit racist

    The racism charge is just one of Greg’s little counter arguments set up as a distraction in case the real issue goes awry on him.

    The other he raised straight away was the claim that marriage isn’t a Christian sacrament anyway!

    Thus he lays down in pathetic surrender and says to the gay activist fraternity “run all over me folks, I’m a Christian without a Biblical principle to defend and I’m all yours!”

    He says there is nothing about marriage for a Christian to consider, nothing for us to defend as a sacrament of holy matrimony between a man and a woman, and straightaway slams his head in the sand and raises his backside in the air.

    As I said earlier:

    ‘He conveniently overlooks the first miracle of Jesus being recorded at the marriage feast in Cana.

    He completely disregards the very first prophecy recorded being that a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife as one flesh.

    He looks the other way in case it is pointed out afresh that Jesus confirmed this prophecy as valid for all time in his own words.

    He blacks out of consciousness when he is reminded that Paul advised those who are unable to control their sexual passions to marry, albeit, not to same sex partners.

    He sleeps through the reminder that the writer of Hebrews reveals that the marriage bed is undefiled, but all other sexual practices are wrong for the believer.

    And, worse of all, he completely ignores Paul’s revelation of the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church is akin to the marriage between a husband and wife.’

  32. What we have here is the death throes of the supposed moral guardians of society. Except we all know morals are relative and determined by society itself. Racism, homophobia, sexism have all been militantly defended by these moral crusaders whose morals are now seen as immoral.

  33. So Steve wony marry a gay couple buy will happily take their tithes and offerings on the false belief that god will bless them.

    I suppose you wouldnt bury them either.

    [These crudely irrelevant accusations were close to being moderated. Last warning! Ed]

  34. Bones,
    What we have here is the death throes of the supposed moral guardians of society.

    That would be the liberal ideologues then.

    The issue on this thread is whether gay activists are justified in taking the Church of England to court for adhering to Biblical principles.

    You have not addressed this. You have only accused Christians of racism, sexism and homophobia, which is nonsense.

    Do you really think we fear homosexual activists? Do they even know what the hyped up term homophobia actually means? ‘Fear of the same kind’?

    Since when was opposition to error considered fear of it? Since when did the defence of faith and truth constitute fear of the opposer of faith and truth?

    What can man do to us? Lock us away for believing the Bible? Prosecute us for refusing to marry men to men? Kill the body?

    No, we rather fear God.

    As should you.

    But you’re long lost to God and His will.

  35. But, Bones, why this emphasis on forcing the Church of England to marry gay men?

    Why are you pushing so hard for this with all your relative moralism?

    Surely it would be unjust for gays, who have the right to marry one another, to press the Church of England into performing ceremonies against their will.

    Surely you would stand with the Church of England’s right to determine who they marry in their ceremonies.

    Surely you, of all people, would see the side of justice which says that, in view of the fact that gays are able to marry in England, they can just go and do so, finding a church or minister who has opted in to marry gays, and leaving those who have not opted in to their own traditions.

    No one is preventing gays from marrying in UK. They have it. It is theirs for the taking. It is law. So marry already and be done with it.

    You claimed they would never, ever force the Church to marry them in their sanctuaries against their will, or take them to court to force them into it.

    That was your own stated moral view on it.

    Now you are standing in the court room cheering gays on as they attempt to blindside the very law which gave them the right to marry.

  36. This article sums up my feelings about it. They may well be suing but they will be taking on powerful religious forces AS WELL AS the government to succeed. Both would have seen this coming and I’ve no doubt have contingencies in place. This is a different suit to sacking someone on the basis of their sexuality or refusing service to gays.

    Are The Drewitt-Barlow’s Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?

    Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow’s, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.

    Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of “we knew this would happen” but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow’s have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don’t want to.

    To them I’d say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn’t make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don’t just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I’m guessing the latter.

    Meanwhile back in the real world. I’ve no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I’ve no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.

    Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don’t agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.

    Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I’ve little interest in changing what a church supports. But I’d hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you’d do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.

    Forcing an organisation to accept something they don’t wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn’t come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.

    Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?

    http://jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/are-drewitt-barlows-striking-blow-for.html

    Btw apparently the CofE Church they REGULARLY attend wants to conduct the wedding but are not allowed. That is the catalyst for the suit.

  37. Perhaps, but the sentiment was here, and some of the extraordinary claims against Christians on this thread were, apart from being irrelevant to the subject, beyond belief.

  38. This is simply the logical progression,
    and what I predicted would happen – though I was argued with!

    Homosexuals first want their partnerships legally recognized. There was no push for marriage.

    But once they got their legal recognition, it follows that they would want the right to be married – even though they said that wasn’t what they wanted.

    But once they get the right to marry then it stands to reason that if a homosexual married couple are active
    in a church and their relationship accepted, they would want a wedding like everyone else.

    So if Christians accept that not allowing men to marry men is on the same level as racism, then of course they will argue that they should have the right to a church wedding.

    So, this challenge won’t be the last even if they lose. They’ll just keep fighting. And as long as there are idiot so-called Christians who can’t tell the difference between the worst examples of racism and slavery, and the long accepted sane idea that men marry women, then foolish reprobates will be there walking hand in hand with homosexuals is assailing God’s church.

    The irony in this case is that the onus is really on Greg to go and convince this rich homosexual couple that they shouldn’t be wanting a church wedding in the first place. So go get em Gregory.

    Greg’s solution is for all church everywhere to stop having weddings.

    No the easiest thing to do is just tell those rich homosexuals to wake up and become real men again.

    Real men marry women, or stay single.

    It’s very simple.

    And yes, their photos make me sick.

    Just keeping it real.

  39. “I for one like the idea of the church getting out of the wedding game”

    It’s not a game.
    In many countries the legal marriage is
    completely different to the religious wedding ceremony.
    Iow, couple get married in a city office then later (or before) have some kind of religious ceremony.
    And for most people that’s not a game but a beautiful and meaningful thing.

    But a minister who knows God and His ways simply can’t bless a same-sex marriage anymore than he could bless a man/robot couple or man/Taiwanese lesbian ghost couple.

    Why? Because it’s absurd.

    I do realize though that in order to justify anything, Greg and Bones could drag up the case of a Christian doing something wrong over the last 2000 years. You two are like attack dogs.

    I suggest these guys leave the Anglican Church alone and get married in some weird church and have Bones and Greg as flower girls

    But no, these guys will keep going.

    And if in ten years they’ll start suing evangelical churches which will really make Bones and Greg happy.

    It’s a crazy world. And getting crazier. Why? Because of individuals and countries rejecting Christianity.

    I repeat. Homosexual marriage is being foisted on the world by post-Christian societies.

    Those who once knew the truth and reject it become worse than those who never knew it.

    Study it.

    The attacks on ministries, churches and historic Christianity isn’t being led by the non- Christian world.
    It’s by angry, rebellious ex-Christians or those who have basically stopped humbly following God but don’t have the guts to admit it.

    Ie cowardly christians who care more about what men think than what God says.

    Christian men these days are so weak and feminine. Which explains why they would support men marrying men and their right to lavish weddings.

    This website makes my stomach turn.

  40. Just keeping it real.

    No you’re not..you’re keeping it bigoted.

    Christian men these days are so weak and feminine

    Do you look pretty in a dress Q?

    I find you to eb a totally reasonable and articulate person on most counts, however your attitude and words around this are quite disturbing.

  41. “you’re keeping it bigoted”

    Because I think it’s unnatural and absurd for men to want to kiss men, have sex with them, be married to them, and cry over not having a lavish wedding?

    Go talk to most people in most countries of the world and they would think YOU are absolutely crazy!

    “Do you look pretty in a dress Q?”

    I doubt it. Not with my super macho body!

    “I find you to be a totally reasonable and articulate person”

    Stop right there. Yes, I can understand that. Thanks. If you left it at that, it would have been a brilliant post my friend.

    No. I’m reasonable. But not articulate Especially not when I feel nauseous.

  42. Greg,
    What claims in particular were extraordinary?

    Don’t be so lazy. Read the thread for yourself rather than make others spell it out for you again.

    The post was clearly about the move to sue the Church of England not about whether gay marriage or gayness was right or wrong. Nor was it about whether marriages should be conducted in churches, which you opposed, and which was the most weak-kneed, pathetic, girly-man attack on marriage and Christianity I have seen for some time, quite apart from being historically and Biblically wrong and totally irrelevant to the thread.

    Do you think gay men should sue the Church of England for not marrying them, or not?

  43. Good to see the quality of debate – girly man, weak-kneed, pathetic.

    Just need to add in poof and pansy and we’ll be back in the 70s.

    Oh and Greg’s right of course re the history of marriage.

    It doesn’t belong to the church which is entirely consistent with the thread nor is it the Church’s (which is you and me btw) responsibility to define marriage..

    But you know that otherwise you would engage in debate.

  44. Yes I do think they should. Wherever the church seeks to be an arm of the state but does not abide by the states decrees it should be forced to. However, if the church were to abandon all government financial benefit and largesse I would be happy for it to do as it wished and be free from court challenges.

  45. I think girly-man aptly sums up Greg’s weedy capitulation, especially when you bear in mind that he was responding to a gay activist when he said he’d like to see marriage taken away from the Christian Church and it never belonged there in the first place. I also called it pathetic. ‘Oh, the gays are challenging us, let’s feed them more wrong-headed ness to strengthen their cause’.

    I personally think Greg is better than this and far more butch. I was actually calling his capitulation weak rather than him personally, which I am sure could not be the case. I mean, he rides a Harley doesn’t he? Must be macho then.

    I had a picture of him on his back with hands and legs waving in the air in a completely resigned aire of submission like a puppy dog. Not a pretty sight.

    But neither you nor he responded to the Biblical information on marriage I placed on this thread twice which shows it to be a Christian tradition flowing on from Jewish roots and the earliest recorded prophecy…

    ‘He conveniently overlooks the first miracle of Jesus being recorded at the marriage feast in Cana.

    He completely disregards the very first prophecy recorded being that a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife as one flesh.

    He looks the other way in case it is pointed out afresh that Jesus confirmed this prophecy as valid for all time in his own words.

    He blacks out of consciousness when he is reminded that Paul advised those who are unable to control their sexual passions to marry, albeit, not to same sex partners.

    He sleeps through the reminder that the writer of Hebrews reveals that the marriage bed is undefiled, but all other sexual practices are wrong for the believer.

    And, worse of all, he completely ignores Paul’s revelation of the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church is akin to the marriage between a husband and wife.’

  46. There’s nothing wrong with Christians having some kind of celebration of their marriage in a Church.

    Ian Roberts? ha!

    As for the names? You call people nutjobs and Greg calls people nancy girls.
    I was just being funny, showing that anyone can have fun with words.

    So Bones, I suppose you’ve got quite a lot of Ian Roberts videos and pictures …. quite the fan are we? creepy.

    anyway, this topic is too distasteful for me.

    I’ll leave it for Greg to talk about marrying ghosts and banning church weddings, and let Bones get back to drooling over Roberts!

  47. By the way, your argument that marriage don’t belong to the Church is totally erroneous to the discussion, and a huge detour, apart from being tricky and disengenuous.

    Of course it belongs to the Church, and even more so to your Catholic Church, which calls it one of the main Sacraments, yet here you are, the defender of purgatory, transubstantiation, Marian worship and prayers for the dead, hammering one the key Sacraments of the RC Church, which they would claim goes back beyond the first miracle at Cana.

    The thing is that it also belongs to every other religion, and even non-religious people have weddings. It belongs to all the people, in fact, and has been, over millennia since Christ, championed by the Church.

    All your nonsense google anti-church liberalisation of a great social and familial tradition is pathetic. Do either of you have daughters? Ask them what they think of marriage. Wy do you think Jane Austin and the like and the knight in shining armour is so important to women. Are you completely clueless about people, or what? What the heck do you think these gay men want marriage for if it is not important to them? And in a church. one probably wants to dress in white! Clueless!

    Who gives a rip about your dumbing down of the social importance of marriage anyway, when it is perfectly obvious that for hundreds of years people have been married in churches all over the reached world.

    As I have already said, discussion with you and Greg on the bIblical tradition of marriage, especially in a Christian sense, is pointless, because you and he have long denied the Bible’s authenticity, so any reference to marriage has been ignored, and will be challenged by you.

  48. Garry Jack made comments to Ian Roberts about his sexuality then got his head smashed in. Garry Jack looked like Phil Gould with a thousand wasp stings after Roberts had finished with him. At the end of the game Jack was looking for his teeth on the field. Don’t know if Jack called anyone a poof again.

    From Ian Roberts’s book

    He (Roberts) was walking with his boyfriend in the cross when these westies (Q?) drove past and yelled, “ROBERTS YOU POOFTER.” He then chased them and caught them at the next red light, He ripped the passenger out of the car punched him around a bit and stood on his head and said “Now go and tell all your mates a poofter bashed you.”

    Pity Roberts was a Manly wanker.

  49. The Myth About Marriage

    Garry Wills

    Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution.

    Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.”

    Btw it’s not an astounding prophecy when it already had been happening for thousands of years. Bit like saying you shall get your carkeys, turn the ignition and the car shall start. PROPHECY.

    Interesting that the paedophile debate hasn’t been used ergo next the Church will be marrying kids.

    Fact is of course, that has already happened – many times in the past.

  50. So Bones’ little googled entry above confirms what I wrote earlier, that Christian marriage, or marriage ceremonies in churches are a Christian tradition flowing on from Jewish roots and the earliest recorded prophecy…

    The rest of his claims are based on his anti-biblical evolutionary beliefs which confirm his non-Christian worldview, which has been enhanced to an anti-Christian perspective of everything.

  51. So, to Bones and Greg, the following passage means nothing at all…

    Ephesians 5
    22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
    23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
    24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
    26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
    27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
    28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
    29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
    30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
    31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
    32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
    33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

  52. Could swear Paul was making a point using a cultural norm about the relationship with Christ and the Church.

  53. The question isn’t about who ‘invented’ marriage but whether it is a Christian tradition or, as the Catholics have it, sacrament.

    You are the worse kind of person to discuss issues with because flit from one point to another like a wayward butterfly making up new and unrelated topics to take us on some magical mystery tour to nowhere.

    Adam wasn’t a Jew. His was the first prophecy and it related to marriage.

    Jesus was aJew, and confirmed Adam’s prophecy, ratifying marriage and the fact that t is between a man and a woman. Paul confirmed it as between a husband and wife. He added its mystery being akin to that of Christ and the Church.

    None of his means anything to you because you don’t believe in the authenticity of Moses or the Gospels.

  54. Adam and Eve didn’t exist – so hard for them to actually have been a prophecy Steve.

    Of course it belongs to the Church,

    No it doesn’t. That’s like England sailing over here to Australia and claiming it as its own when clearly it wasn’t theirs, they stole it. The church has stolen marriage. It is purely a civil political and economic act that the church has latched onto in order to control people.

  55. Greg, in another fit of folly,
    That’s like England sailing over here to Australia and claiming it as its own when clearly it wasn’t theirs, they stole it.

    So go back to your country of origin then and let the original inhabitants have it back.

    The church has stolen marriage.

    That must be the dumbest comment I’ve seen on here for some time. How could anyone ‘steal’ marriage? Adopt it, adapt it, copy it or conform to it, maybe, but seal it? That is too banal to continue with as a concept. In fact, marriage has been a key element of society for centuries, and by your own incoherence you admit to it.

    I have already commented on this earlier but I don’t think, by the evidence of what you say, you read through threads or pick up the flow of conversation so you are certain to have missed the context of anything I have said.

    The Church has been largely instrumental in promoting marriage as an integral part of the familial social unit, and takes it from the most ancient o texts as its guidelines. The major religions of the world all take marriage form the original Biblical texts and prophecy attributed to Adam by Moses.

    Whether you believe Adam existed or not is totally irrelevant only declares your lack of belief in Scripture rather than anything else.

    It is purely a civil political and economic act that the church has latched onto in order to control people.

    Ha Ha. A conspiracy theory.

    The Church, despite the wording of the Bible which predate its beginnings, somehow latched onto the concept of marriage in order to control people.

    Thats so far fetched and whacky I wonder which cornflakes packet you dug it out of.

    So Paul’s assertion that the relationship between the husband and wife is a mystery akin to the relationship between Christ and the Church was a mere control mechanism devised by God, was it?

    Come on, Greg, you can do better than this.

  56. Steve, he can’t. These guys are just clowns. Sorry. They will say anything no matter how ludicrous to try to prove that men should be able to marry men, and churches shouldn’t be able to refuse.

    But think about it. Anyone silly enough to think that a male kissing, haviing sex with and wanting to have a lavish wedding and get married to a male is normal or should be considered …is, totally weird.

    Just think about it guys.

    It’s just crazy!

    Anyway, call the cops. Australia and marriage have been stolen!!!!!!

    Someone get a boat for Greg so he can leave Australia and stop trespassing and live on an island with no people except him and his homosexual friends and whoever he wants to give marriage back.

    Naughty church!!! Stealing marriage. How horrible.

    “the church has latched onto in order to control people.”

    You really are an angry young man aren’t you? lol

    @BOnes …after all your bleating about violence, you seem totally turned on by your boy Roberts beating people up. ooh what a he-man

    lol

    Bones, maybe if you send him a fan latter, he can blow you a kiss, and then beat some people up, for your entertainment.

    Go for it Bones. Yes Roberts was big and could bash up people smaller than him.
    I’ll let you go and watch him in action on youtube.

    You are completely weird!

    lol

    But what a weird story. They should have sued him. After all his bleating and crying about tweets, he thinks it’s okay to chase someone down and assault them??

    Yes, Bones, there are some very angry, vindictive, violent homosexuals out there who bash up men smaller than them. Gary Jack?? hahahaha

    Bones and Greg must be either gay or bisexual. This love affair with homosexuals and hatred of the church must come from somewhere.

    Good night guys. I’ll let you get back to your swooning!

  57. What we are seeing here is, in effect, an attempted coup.

    Bones and Greg are merely willing foot soldiers in the current usurping of basic Judaeo-Christian concepts by the homosexual lobbyists they champion. Marriage is the latest in a line of attacks on Christian teaching.

    The saddest part of this entire discussion is that Bones and Greg claim to be Christian, yet work against Christ an the Church.

    By attacking the origins of male/female relations in marriage to establish same sex relations they are attempting to introduce a false means of making homosexual marriage, and, therefore, homosexual practices, Biblically sound. It is not, and never can be.

    Sadly, the majority of the community and many practicing Christians, including some teachers and leaders, are so empty of sound Biblical understanding that they are too easily convinced that homosexual marriage is acceptable to God. It is not, and never will be.

    It won’t be long before they arguing for portions of the Bible texts to be removed which call homosexuality an abomination in God’s sight. It is inevitable.

    My personal opinion is that whatever secular governments decide about anything in he gradual liberalisation of law and legislation is totally up to the majority vote, whether in secular democracies or totalitarian law-makers.

    But the Church must adhere to its Christian values and never be moved away from Christ, His Apostles and Prophets and the foundational truths He gave us the stewardship of, even if it requires that we are persecuted, imprisoned or martyred for refusing to reject them.

    People like Greg and Bones, who are not believers in Scripture, will continue to water down what true Christians believe and be the tools in the hands of non-christians with agendas to remove the tenets of faith and weaken the structure of the Church as we draw closer to the age of the antichrist.

    The persecuted Church is inevitable and we are seeing the beginnings of it, even in secular societies, as our beloved Scriptures come under attack. It is both a fearful prospect but also exciting because it has been long prophesied and ushers the beginning of the end when Christ will come for His Church. Maranatha. Even so come Lord Jesus!

    Liberalisation of common law will usher in the separation of the true Church from the worldly church. It will mean that those of us who follow Christ as he is revealed to us in Scripture will be more and more ridiculed and ostracised.

    Marriage will be just one of the battle grounds, and the secular world and opposers of Christ will have many seeming victories in these times, but they are only signs of the coming of Christ.

    Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
    1 Timothy 4:1-3

  58. People like Greg and Bones, who are not believers in Scripture, will continue to water down what true Christians believe

    so once again, Steve sets himself up to be the arbiter of who is and is not a true Christian and what they believe! You’re entirely correct, I do not believe in scripture! I believe in God. And I believe you are not able to argue intelligently even after I’ve provided a page that lists a whole pile of logical fallacies…attacking us and our beliefs as a defense of your position is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem, and you know that.

  59. reg,
    the arbiter of who is and is not a true Christian and what they believe

    Well that is a false accusation.

    I actually stated that you do not believe in Scripture, which you just confirmed.

    Believing in God but denying Scripture doesn’t necessarily make you a Christian, does it?

    It means you believe in God, but not in His Word.

    That, by the way, is one of the reasons I do not argue with you or Bones from Scripture any more. It is, as I have said countless times, futile because you just then attack the authenticity of just about every Scripture in the canon.

    I don’t see how that makes ether of you a Christian, but I’ll let God judge that one.

  60. You see, Greg, if you believed Scripture as a Christian you would not reject the passage of Scripture I put up which confirm the importance and significance of marriage to Christians.

    You not only rejected them but called them false.

    You had no theological basis on which to do this, nor did you attempt to give a reason for rejecting them, which says to any genuine Christian that you do not accept the words of Christ or the theology of Paul.

    I showed that marriage was important to Christians from the very start of the Church at Jesus’ ascension and you rejected even the canon on this.

    Your aim to make homosexual marriage acceptable is severely challenged by the canon of Scripture, which is why you have to eliminate it form any discussion you have and rely on googled pro-gay lobbyist articles as your sources.

    So you deny Scripture and rely on opinion.

    Where is the Christian credibility in that?

  61. The major religions of the world all take marriage form the original Biblical texts and prophecy attributed to Adam by Moses.

    What rot… How could Hinduism or Buddhism have taken anything from Biblical texts before contact with the west or at least the middle-east thousands of years after their foundational texts were written?

    Most societies have some form of marriage. It is a near universal social custom, and has been akin to ownership for most of its history. The biblical texts are describing it not defining it.

    If you are referring to Jesus’ words on marriage ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female’ these words were clearly in response to a question on divorce and were part of an extremely strong condemnation of divorce under almost all circumstances.

    As has been said before, the fact that the modern Pentecostal/Evangelical churches can largely accept divorce but then use the same words as a clobber clause against homosexual marriage, is extremely inconsistent to say the least and very telling.

    But every time the inconsistency is pointed out, we get a response akin to ‘La. La. La… I can’t hear you. We are talking about homosexuality not divorce… ‘ … etc. etc.

  62. I’ll qualify the major religions of the world as Christianity and Islam, which are clearly the most populous, and would throw in Judaism. I agree that Hinduism and Buddhism would not necessarily be influenced by the Bible. But they do marry, however. Although, do serious Buddhist adherents marry?

    Jesus’ words that ‘a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife’ is the first prophecy confirmed by Jesus, which gives both Genesis and Adam its authenticity.

    I did already state that the words of Jesus to confirm marriage were ‘a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife’, but perhaps you missed it.

    Genesis 2
    23* And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
    24* Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
    25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    Matthew 19
    4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
    5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
    6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Whether he is discussing divorce or not has no bearing on whether a man should be allowed to marry a man or a woman a woman. he is clearly defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, a husband and wife.

    He confirms Genesis, Adam and the prophecy on marriage.

    Your argument on divorce vs gay marriage is, as it always has been, a straw man.

  63. Okay, I think I might be able to get my point across with this.

    To Wazza, Bones and Greg.

    To me the whole gay marriage thing is just absurd. It shouldn’t even be something that needs to be debated. But if you debate it, and ignore the Bible, thousands of years of tradition and common sense, than you can argue for anything.

    Case in point. Now I see that in Australia that there is controversy about the vagina photos on the Uni student magazine. Many people will argue that showing vaginas on a magazine is good and healthy and positive and that no adult should have a problem with it.

    But I think it’s nuts, and that normal people would see it as nuts. But if Fred Nile, or Brian Houston or Steve was asked tomorrow what they think, and they answered that it was inappropriate, Greg would ask why and Bones would come up with reasons why churches are hypocritical.

    Go further. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with me wearing a T-shirt with a photo of a vagina on it. Why? For the heck of it, or because i just want to show that there’s nothing wrong with the human body and vaginas need to be desexualised etc etc etc.

    Now most people in most countries would have a problem with it. But how do you argue that?

    It’s a part of a person’s body. If people are offended, that’s their fault. If people worry about kids then that isn’t a problem either because kids should learn from a young age that there is nothing rude, obscene, embarassing etc about the human body. And thousnads of years ago people were embarassed about bare shoulders so it’s just cultural, and the psychologists say that……….well, just add in any other argument.

    But, no doubt there are people who would argue that way, and say that anyone who objects is just a neanderthal, or a hypocrite, or not understanding attitudes to nudity throughout history.

    No. Christian people, and people who aren’t Christians but who retain some common sense and dignity would realize that it’s just not appropriate and not decent.

    So, vaginas on student magazine covers, Penises on T-shirts, nude bible studies in front of the Opera house, gay Christian marriages – these are all just absurd and foolish things that shouldn’t even be thought about.

    But here we go. LIke I said, we have the absolute absurd state of affairs where Greg and Bones would be too gutless or maybe sensible to say that the magazine cover is crazy.

    It all started when Christians became so worried about fitting in with what the most radical critics of Christianity think. They can’t stand up for anything anymore, unless it has something to do with attack a church, a ministry or a book of the Bible.

    Backslidden Christians who attack the church continually, are the biggest enemy of Christ in the world today.

    And that’s why they have no peace and wonder why they have no fellowship with God.

  64. Lily Patchett explains why she allowed student newspaper Honi Soit to publish a photo of her vagina

    University of Sydney student Lily Patchett.

    LILY Patchett was exposed to the world yesterday.

    Lily was one of 18 young women who agreed to have their vaginas photographed and published on the cover of a student newspaper at the University of Sydney.

    Four thousand copies of the Honi Soit paper were confiscated by the university’s Student Representative Council after an edition was distributed featuring uncensored vaginas on the front cover.

    The cover was supposed to make women feel better about their own bodies by showing them what normal vaginas look like.

    “We are tired of society giving us a myriad of things to feel about our own bodies,” the editors of Honi Soit said on Facebook. “We are tired of having to attach anxiety to our vaginas.”

    Social media was soon set alight under the hashtag #vaginasoit, drawing both praise and condemnation.

    Lily, an 18-year-old student at the university, has no regrets. In fact, she’s proud of her contribution to the controversial campaign.

    “I’m proud to be a part of the project because I’ve already had women come up to me and thank me for helping them in the process of coming to terms with their own bodies, and how in some ways they don’t fit the porn-standardised lie, but are still normal and still beautiful,” Lily told news.com.au .

    “To me the cover was honest. Every woman involved in the project and quoted in the article was speaking from their heart,” she said.

    The logo of Honi Soit, the student newspaper in question.

    Lily is a member of the Women’s Collective at the University of Sydney. She was recruited to the Honi Soit project at one of the group’s meetings.

    “One day when I was sitting in on a meeting, Lucy Watson, one of Honi’s editors, came in to tell us about the project and ask if anyone would like to think about participating,” Lily said.

    “No one had to lock in anything then and there, and of course they could drop out any time they wanted, but many of us thought it was a really good thing to do and there wasn’t much trouble getting volunteers.”

    In fact, the paper’s editors got more volunteers than they needed.

    “I think initially they were thinking of only getting about 10 vaginas, but all up we had 18, so almost double that!” Lily said. She didn’t hesitate to volunteer herself.

    “I wanted to do it from the beginning,” she said. “Despite all the odds, I’m pretty comfortable in my own body, and was eager to help other women feel comfortable in theirs.

    “That matters more to me than all of the sexist pigs who’ve laughed and made awful jokes about the vaginas, you know?”

    The University of Sydney’s main quadrangle.

    Lily wasn’t surprised by the backlash against Honi Soit and the women who participated. Critics have called the paper’s cover “inappropriate”, among other, less polite things.

    “I expected the criticism, but I can’t understand it,” Lily said.

    “When is it going to be appropriate to show our bodies as they are, and not in some false, made-up way? Because if there is a place and time, not enough people know about it.

    “The truth of the diversity and richness of our bodies is hidden from almost everyone. In 2013, I couldn’t think of a more appropriate time.”

    Meanwhile, the reaction from Lily’s friends has been overwhelmingly positive, and she has been supported well by others involved in the story.

    “Jennifer Yiu (who photographed all of the vaginas featured on the cover) was very professional about the whole thing,” Lily said.

    “She made us feel like it was just another part of our bodies, which it is really, and that there was nothing to feel awkward about.

    “All of the friends I have who’ve come up and said something to me about it have been very much supportive and proud of me,” she said.

    “The worst of it was just a guy friend of mine asking which vagina was mine, and yeah, ugh, that totally missed the point.”

    None of the snide remarks bother Lily enough to make her regret her involvement. She hopes the Honi Soit cover will help other women understand that their bodies are normal.

    “I can get through that knowing there are women out there who are now feeling less hung up on the way their vaginas look.”

    “(The cover) is attention grabbing, yes, because no one expects to see real vaginas, even in porn, let alone on the front cover of a student newspaper! I’m lost as to how this is a bad thing though.”

    Lily Patchett has written about the controversial Honi Soit cover on Birdee . You can read her blog here.

    Continue the conversation on Twitter: @SamClench | @francisfae | @honi_soit

  65. But if course Q would rather women continue to feel their vaginas are what makes them who they are and should be kept hidden. Perhaps if there were more dicks and ginies shown around all of us would feel more comfortable with the normality of our tackle instead of wondering if ours is big enough, tight enough or shaped just right.

  66. “you don’t like vaginas and so gay marriage is nuts”

    Gay marriage is nuts! Sensible people throughout history have known that.
    Having photos of vaginas on student magazines is nuts.

    See both these things are crazy. Nobody could have believe either would be entertained years ago. And by far most people thing both are crazy too.

    In the same way that we shouldn’t need to be talking about whether a university should have photos of vaginas on it’s student newspaper, it’s crazy that men want to marry men, and that Christians thing they should be married in church.

    But it’s as I thought. Really. Greg and Bones both see nothing wrong with a university magazine cover of vaginas. And they both want to call themselves Christians.

    So, Steve and I are completely wasting our time discussing just about anything here.

    The mega church wins! Hillsong and C3 win. All you have to do is tell people that the kind of people who are always railing against charismatic churches are the same people who think gays should be marrying, adopting, having their marriages blessed in church, and see nothing wrong with uni magazine covers full of photos of genitalia.

    You are sick and you don’t know it. Truly. Actually, dead is the word.

    Oh, i read the article you posted. This girl’s father has my sympathies. And she shouldn’t be surprised at all if someone asked her which vagina was hers. If she was surprised about that she has no understanding of life, or males or the universe.

    Uni of Sydney?

    lol

    Watch out for match the vagina games over drinks.

    At least people who didn’t go to university have yet another reason to not feel bad.

    ” I’m lost as to how this is a bad thing though.”
    So is Bones and Greg.

    So there are at least three lost souls.

    Okay, Greg, go ahead and wear a t-shirt with a photo of your penis on it then
    Show the world that size doesn’t matter!

    What an insane world we live in. Truly insane!

  67. btw, could we take down those sickening photos…..

    how do you guys not gag when you see that?!? Have you all been so desensitised??

  68. The photos are from the original article in the Mail. They are supposed to be confronting – unless you want to bury your head in the sand and have a false impression of what a homosexual couple with surrogate children looks like.

    The interesting thing is that one of them runs a business for surrogacy. You don’t suppose this could be a free promo for his business do you? No. Couldn’t be. Surely.

    But here’s the thing. If homosexual or lesbian marriage were such a natural arrangement for couples, given that part of marriage is to do with growing a family, how come they have to resort to surrogacy to produce children?

    I am for IVF where it is required in normal circumstances, but it should be established that one or both of the partners is infertile or has a genuine health risk in child-bearing before it is granted. If both partners are shown to be fertile, either as men or women, then they should be denied IVF treatment.

  69. Actually buryingy head in the sand is sounding attractive…

    Okay, I’ll be away for a while girls. Have fun.

    I suppose by the time I get back Greg will be married to a Taiwanese ghost and Bones will be tossing up between Ian Roberts and Chelsea Manning.

    (Yeah strange isn’t it. Bones abhors any form of violence for any reason ….but can’t help feeling strangely warmed by Robert’s dominating smaller men. But then Chelsea (formerly Bradley) is so attractive too because of his intellect and hate of the US).

    Bones is no doubt torn …,

    Unless he marries both? Greg would be happy to recognize the union.

    Adios.
    Be back next month.

  70. This letter’s circulating the rounds. The ACL doesn’t give a rip about anything else.

    Dear Friends,
    Now is not the time to give up on marriage.
    Changing the definition of marriage in Australia is not inevitable. But marriage is certainly under enormous pressure.
    This pressure can be relieved if leaders and ordinary people speak up. And pray.
    Nine people in the 17-member ACT Legislative Assembly will next month pass a bill redefining marriage. It will affect the entire nation.
    Because marriage is a Commonwealth responsibility, not that of a Territory, the Prime Minister Tony Abbott is seeking legal advice.
    An option Mr Abbott has is to introduce a bill into the Federal Parliament to overturn the ACT’s usurping of federal responsibility.
    If Labor members in the Senate exercise the right the ALP has given them to a conscience vote, there is no reason an override bill would not pass and marriage be preserved.
    In the meantime, the most effective thing we can do is write to Mr Abbott and ask him to take strong action to preserve the definition of marriage and to preserve the Commonwealth’s role in marriage.
    It is not in Australia’s interests to have a hodgepodge of marriage laws.
    It is not in the interests of children to be removed from their biological parent to satisfy the desires of others – no matter how heartfelt.
    It is not in the interest of civil society for government to create vulnerabilities for religious freedom and freedom of speech – certain outcomes of any legislated change to the definition of marriage.
    Please contact Mr Abbott today. A short e-mail or better still a letter from you respectfully asking him to overturn the ACT legislation and to preserve marriage would be influential at this time.
    God bless,
    Lyle Shelton
    ACL Managing Director

Comments are closed.