Sydney Morning Herald Editorial and Michael Kirby's Homosexual truth is not God's truth
The Sydney Morning Herald decided to do an editorial on one of its own homosexual journalist demand for immediate changes to the marriage to all homosexuals to marry.
This editorial is again like Andrew Webster's article full of emotion only. There is no logic, no supportive argument, just sentiment seeking to sway the public by emotion.
Will homosexual marriage bring equality and acceptance? The answer is clearly no. It will continue to divide people. Then legislative force will be needed to force people to marry homosexual against their will, like in New York and recently in France.
The homosexual lobby will then need to continue to lobby government just like the USA with its EDNA legislation plus other legislation to force people who do no agree with homosexuality to change their minds with regards to education and business.
Homosexual advocates will need to attack churches, florists who refuse to offer then flowers on their wedding day, Christian businesses, charities, who refuse to employ them etc. They will need to silence chaplains, pastors and Christian books.
They will need to attack Christian schools when they try to place their sperm donated IVF children into those school but are refused. and if accepted will try to get the religious teaching changed. The list goes on and on.
Why? Because the bottom line is that homosexuality is a sin, built on lust, condemned by scripture, history and the church for years, like any other sin. It is an offense to many and will continue to be so. No emotional editorial will change that. Just as an aboriginal objected to the insertion of homosexuality into Redfern Now and was shot to pieces because he said homosexuality would not have been accepted by his elders.
Editors are not God and the Sydney Morning Herald has simply presented a tired emotional plea that offends many including God.
EDITORIAL
Sometimes someone changes the world for the better … one person at a time.
A decade ago High Court judge Michael Kirby inspired the then confused, angry and suicidal sports journalist Andrew Webster to accept what he secretly knew: that he was gay.
A grateful Webster wrote to Kirby, who replied with this: ''I hope you will spare a little of your time to speak of your own journey, Andrew. If only everyone affected, including the families, did so, all this rubbish would evaporate and truth and science would take its place.''
Now Webster has told the story of his sexuality in the Herald … and the world has changed for the better.
Every person who reads Webster's heart-wrenching account will surely be moved to tell someone else, who will tell another and another and so on it will go until ''all this rubbish'' is consigned to history.
Before that can happen, the political, legal and practical obstacles are daunting.
Many advocates are torn. Should they pursue no-compromise reforms or easier civil unions like those proposed in a bill before the NSW Upper House?
The Herald believes same-sex marriage must come, so as to afford Australian homosexuals in love the same compassion, legal status and social acceptance as enjoyed by heterosexuals. Such recognition will not preclude objectors from continuing to practise their marriage traditions, nor encroach on core family values.
Good parenting is blind to sexuality. So are love, caring, empathy, respect and community cohesion.
But the Herald also recognises historic change can come only through national consensus.
The contributions of Kirby and Webster to that end are enormous, by stripping away dangerous stereotypes and shifting focus back to the human spirit. ''It comes down to whether you think I am good enough to be married to the person I love,'' Webster wrote.
Most Australians support same-sex marriage but have given it a lower priority than other issues.
Webster would offer a solution: ''No march. No more debate. No more bullshit.''
That's unlikely in the face of entrenched opposition on grounds of religion, culture and sometimes simple ignorance. All of these feed the fears of politicians.
The federal government has asked the High Court to scupper ACT laws that redefine marriage in a way that strikes directly at the legal and cultural history of man-woman unions.
A less-strident NSW bill debated this week creates a separate form of legally recognised union available to homosexuals. Amid such uncertainty across jurisdictions, national leadership is crucial. Without it, the debate may degenerate into divisiveness of the sort that has scuttled progress on an Australia republic.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott may prefer that outcome for same-sex marriage too.
But the contributions of Kirby, Webster and many Coalition MPs will make it difficult for him to delay the inevitable. He must know the only way to sort this out is to allow Federal Parliament to deal with it in an open and informed way.
The Coalition so far has denied its MPs a conscience vote. Abbott must now apply his moral weight to his partyroom so it can approve a conscience vote for every MP.
He should also allocate time for a private member's bill to go before Parliament.
Any proposals must have the surest legal footing and broadest potential community support.
Such strong leadership would not require Abbott to abandon his personal preference for retaining marriage as male-female.
It would simply reassure Australians that Abbott will not allow extremists in his cheer-squad to deny the nation a chance to express its opinion through its elected representatives.
Same-sex marriage reform would be probably defeated in this Parliament in any case, partly because many Coalition MPs fear reprisals for publicly disagreeing with their leader or influential party figures.
But, free of party strictures, more MPs on both sides should stand on principle and participate in a true national debate.
The outcome may not emerge as quickly as many would like. Without an electoral mandate, it is hard to see national consensus for same-sex marriage before the next election.
But, rest assured that more voters are starting to see the human imperative for action, inspired by the stories of Webster and so many others among families, friends and workmates.
