On Sunday we found out about a group of doctors who have come out and said that it's bad for families. Predictably we're told by others that this is wrong. Either way there is more to marriage than children so I'm unsure of why we keep making marriage about children in this debate. The debate will be won or lost on the issues of 'equality' and 'love'. It has nothing to do with children essentially. I even heard Penny Wong on QandA on Monday night rightly tell Joe Hockey that making marriage about children was dumb as people have kids without marriage.
Anyway, I noticed in this group of doctors was a prominent Victorian psychiatrist Dr George. She happens to be on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. She has now said she is not in favour of same-sex marriage. This is former AMA chief Karen Phelps response:
Gay rights activist and former AMA president Kerryn Phelps said Dr George's position on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission should be reviewedEssentially the argument goes, Dr George does not support same-sex marriage. Therefore she can no longer be on the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because same-sex marriage is a right. And this debate is about 'equality'. Which leads me to the title of my post. I suspect in the next few years when the same-sex marriage bill is passed if you are opposed to it will essentially be like saying, 'all black people are stupid'. Or something like that. That is just like (rightly so I might add) we have moved against racism so we will move against 'homophobia', which will equal not being pro-homosexuality, especially same-sex marriage.
So what to do about this? Well on one level what we're debating at the moment is the definition of a word. The word is marriage. At the heart of the debate is 'equality' in the law. I still maintain that the best way forward is for the marriage act to be completely amended and renamed the 'civil union' act. Then at law my marriage becomes a 'civil union' with all the same rights and benefits afforded to me from my marriage. Then if I want to say I'm married. Then I simply go to my church and have a religious service. So at law I am civil-unioned. On a religious level I'm married. This would seem to be the option that makes everyone happy. We all get equality and marriage is not redefined.
Failing this, which I think is likely, then Christians have lost their claim to the word marriage. Marriage will come to mean, not a God ordained way of being, but a secular legal way of being. In this case we will need to think about a new word to use that describes what we currently call marriage. One man and woman united together for life. Perhaps wedded or christian marriage or something.
Does this mean that whenever something we believe in is challenged we try to redefine things so that all are happy? Yes, it there is a sense of equality and love, but who are we trying to please, man or God?
ReplyDeleteAlso, like you mentioned, the definition of 'marriage' needs consideration. Is marriage not a privilege and not a right? Would we not also have to understand the purpose of marriage? Are getting married to have certain privileges or is there something more?
Sorry for all the questions, but do appreciate your point of view.
Cheers for getting us thinking!
No I'm not saying whenever something is challenged we just redefine things but part of being Christian is to exegete our culture and explain our beliefs and way of thinking in that culture. Marriage being a state law is basically a left-over from Christendom I suspect. So the state took marriage and defined it in a Christian way and built a law around it. At the end of the day there is great freedom in knowing that marriage is just a word. If our culture redefines it, which is what they are doing, then it's not like the whole world is going to implode. No rather, Christians need to find a better way to explain what we believe and the principles and truth and values we hold. If we believe that it's a man and woman thing for life, that it's about more than just love, that it's a privilege and not a right, etc. then we need to articulate those ideas in ways that our culture understands.
ReplyDeleteEssentially what the government is doing is redefining marriage as a legal civil union. That's almost what it is now anyway. But we know it's more than that. So we need to figure out ways to communicate our message that aren't going to make us sound like hateful racists. That's I suppose part of my point in this post.
I would argue (obviously from a different government system) that marriage in a legal sense has always been just a civil union. In a Biblical sense it has rarely meant "one man and one woman" but has instead meant an economic commitment to another person (i.e. a man marrying an elderly widow so she isn't disgraced and is taken care of). Paul seems to honor singleness over marriage, and because of this teaches that a man should limit himself to one wife.
ReplyDeleteBut you could just start leaning Anabaptist and not worry about what the state does ;)