Marriage Celebrant hands back licence: no to homosexual marriage
Because I reject the definition of “marriage” which was rammed through by the politicians last year – what I call an ‘act of cultural vandalism’ – I have resigned as a state-sanctioned Marriage Celebrant.
I understand and accept that other celebrants will not agree with my stance. I respect their conscience on this important issue.
However, I will still promote marriage, and will perform marriage ceremonies for couples wanting to marry. I believe in the purpose and covenant of marriage – but it will be marriage between a man and a woman, as defined by culture, history and nature; not defined by politicians and political correctness.
The couple can simply choose to go to the local registry office before or after the wedding if they wish to register their marriage in the eyes of the state and receive the state’s recognition and benefits (if there are any benefits left!)
But it would be wrong of me to allow myself to be appointed by the state to carry out that duty while rejecting the distorted definition that the state has adopted.
The ‘equality’ cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it.
In my view, marriage will always maintain its cultural, natural and historical definition of the lifetime commitment of one man one woman. The real meaning will never change, even if the law’s definition of it does.
I’m not against anybody. I’m simply for the institution of marriage which has stood the test of time – and which we play with at our peril.
I would also have made this decision if the definition had been changed to allow polygamy or group marriage (as will happen one day, unfortunately.)
By playing with definitions and changing the law, social engineers, including politicians and activists, are expecting marriage supporters to drop their deeply-held convictions.
I say “We do not!”
I understand and accept that other celebrants will not agree with my stance. I respect their conscience on this important issue.
However, I will still promote marriage, and will perform marriage ceremonies for couples wanting to marry. I believe in the purpose and covenant of marriage – but it will be marriage between a man and a woman, as defined by culture, history and nature; not defined by politicians and political correctness.
The couple can simply choose to go to the local registry office before or after the wedding if they wish to register their marriage in the eyes of the state and receive the state’s recognition and benefits (if there are any benefits left!)
But it would be wrong of me to allow myself to be appointed by the state to carry out that duty while rejecting the distorted definition that the state has adopted.
The ‘equality’ cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it.
In my view, marriage will always maintain its cultural, natural and historical definition of the lifetime commitment of one man one woman. The real meaning will never change, even if the law’s definition of it does.
I’m not against anybody. I’m simply for the institution of marriage which has stood the test of time – and which we play with at our peril.
I would also have made this decision if the definition had been changed to allow polygamy or group marriage (as will happen one day, unfortunately.)
By playing with definitions and changing the law, social engineers, including politicians and activists, are expecting marriage supporters to drop their deeply-held convictions.
I say “We do not!”
