Last issue, I suggested a possible
compromise and way forward on the
stalemate that is same-sex marriage,
namely having two different types of marriage – a
church marriage and civil marriage. The latter
would allow for same-sex couples to be married
and to use the word “married”, which I argue is
not owned by the church.
I’m enjoying reading all your emails and
tweets on the subject, which continue to fill
my inbox. I’ve decided to devote this issue’s
column to a cross-section of responses.
Pose Tafa writes: “I agree we need two
types of marriage. The church does not have
sole rights to marriage.”
Florence Day says: “What a sane, practical
and non-confrontational concept. The only
downside is – when have we ever managed to
convince our government to do anything sane
or practical?”
And from Kerry Read: “At last! Someone
else shares my view on the marriage debate.
The dual marriage idea sounds like a good
compromise although I would call it a
faith marriage to encompass all faiths and
denominations. Let each religion determine
their requirements for a faith marriage.”
Chris Hassall agrees: “Up there for
thinking, you! All couples should be able to say
‘we’re getting married’”.
Harriett Russ says it’s “a great and fair idea”,
Kathryn Britt, Laurence Barber and Natalie
Bochenski all use the word “sensible”, Dale
Napier says “this is the best outcome”, Carmen
Anderson “would vote for this option” and
Sal Piracha applauds “someone looking for a
solution, not just hating the problem”.
Kathy Schirmer says “I congratulate you for
your suggestion to have church marriage and
civil marriage. Seems so logical and I hope the
community supports this too.”
Matthew Orbit likes it but fears “further
dividing Christian homosexuals from the church
when there is a support/family there” and says
“the zealots on both sides won’t go for it”.
That’s the trouble with compromise. No-one
gets everything they want. Everyone has to give
a little. But there are bmag readers not willing
to budge, like Nathan Thomas who argues that
“the church fights all kinds of social change
– the right to vote for women, for example.
They just need to adapt and learn to accept gay
people as equal citizens”.
Also not willing to compromise is Rob Roy:
“If you accept same-sex unions as ‘marriage’, I
assume you accept the manifesto that marriage
can be defined as polygamy, polyandry and
even bestiality as long as the animal is not
harmed. The proposed brave new world
interfering with the basis of our society is far
from brave. Indeed it is very foolish and shortsighted.”
Bill McCormack goes further, cautioning:
“Unbelievers have their worldly opinion and
that is OK but one day you will have to take
account. Once you have been warned you have
no excuse. At the day of judgement you won’t
be able to call on theory, logic, mates’ views,
etc. You are on your own.”
Allan Templeton tells me his “ideal
solution” bears similarities to my own and
that “many of my Christian friends disagree
with me, thinking I am a bit too liberal”.
The only trouble is, Bill then goes on to
argue that while he supports same-sex “civil
unions”, only church marriages can truly be
“marriages” because “the oldest recorded
mention of ‘marriage’ is in the book of Genesis
where it reports that marriage was instituted
by God”.
And there you have the church’s claim on
the word “marriage” yet again.
Echoing my words in the last issue of bmag,
Maria Frangos writes: “The church should
not force its beliefs on people who are not
members.”
That said, many will agree with Heath
Goddard when he says: “I do not like the
aggression that I observe in the stridency
of the gay community in foisting their
preferences on the majority.”
Mel Kettle points out that “in France, only
the civil marriage ceremony is legal. Any
religious ceremony must be after the civil
and is not legally recognised”. So there is a
precedent.
I’ll leave the final word to Paul Rigby, who
writes: “I suspect that in 50 years, people will
look back at this debate and wonder what the
fuss was all about.” Wouldn’t we all love to
travel into the future to find out?!
No comments:
Post a Comment