I changed my view on gay marriage

First, a declaration. I have long supported the idea that gay couples should be allowed to be joined for life with all the equal rights, recognition and dignity that any heterosexual couple or de facto couple enjoy under the law.

As with most people, when the idea of same-sex marriage first loomed several years ago, I shrugged and thought, “Sure, why not?” I also accepted, as any sane person does, the counter-argument that, historically, marriage has always been uniquely, by definition, the union of two people of the opposite sex, ideally ’til death us do part, for the purpose of procreation.

So — again, like most sensible people — I put these two conflicting arguments together and asked the obvious question: surely there can be some new form of legal civil union with an appropriately respectful phrasing and dignified ceremony that denotes a homosexual coupling for life with the intention of raising a family where children are intended to be the biological offspring of one of the pair? Maybe some ad guru could come up with a funky new word for it, because, with all due respect, that is not what the word “marriage” means.

But then a strange thing happened, starting with the Great Moralising Opportunist of all time, Kevin Rudd. Politician after politician, CEO after CEO, celebrity after celebrity, all miraculously underwent these amazing Road to Damascus-style conversions on gay marriage. It was like some frenzied Deep South Pentecostal meeting. Hallelujah!

Tripping over themselves to grab as much publicity as they could while the idea was still a novelty, they all clambered onto the rainbow-coloured bandwagon with unseemly haste. How, I wondered, could religious or cultural conviction and historical precedent be so easily and casually abandoned?

Next came the bullying. Rather than being politely asked your opinion on the topic, it quickly became de rigueur to “believe” in “marriage equality” (a made-up phrase literally devoid of meaning). To hold any other opinion, or even doubts, meant you were a bigoted, homophobic, morally inferior person deserving of harsh condemnation. Soon, those who raised any qualms were socially ostracised. Or fired from boards. Or both. Thus, the majority learnt to keep their mouths shut.

Then came the neo-Marxist gender assault on our children. In a nutshell, young kiddies are apparently being taught to experiment in mind (and body?) with homosexual desires by teachers who tell them not to mention what goes on to their parents. Future royal commissions, I suspect, will be hauling today’s headmasters, teachers, politicians and academics in to answer for this abomination.

In the UK, a top private primary school for girls (ages 3 to 8) is being threatened with closure because it is NOT teaching the girls about homosexuality and transgender theory. This is a direct result of the UK legalising same-sex marriage in 2010.

I have no doubt such intimidation will begin here, too, the moment same-sex marriage is legalised. In Ontario, Canada, the latest depiction of gender taught in schools is — I kid you not — LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP. The last P, by the way, stands for polyamorous. What next, “polygamy equality”?

Then came the Uluru Bark Petition, with a group of Aboriginal elders, representing 70 different indigenous groups, going to Canberra to petition against gay marriage. Their argument: that the greatest achievement of indigenous Australians was their remarkable survival over 60,000 years in one of the harshest environments on earth, cut off from other civilisations. This feat was achieved through strict cultural rules on heterosexuality and “marriage”, as well as the key role of “ancestors”. Fertility and procreation were paramount. Needless to say, the Left was quick to denounce these elders. Not all indigenous culture, it appears, is worth recognising.

Then came the explosion outside a Christian organisation, allegedly the work of a gay activist from San Francisco. Enough said. Then came the outright hatred; a celebrity singing that those who question gay marriage are homophobic, racist, bigoted c — ts.

Now ad agencies, airlines, banks, and arrogant, bullying, politically correct bosses insist you say “Yes” to gay marriage. Employees, take note: your personal or religious beliefs and the precious freedom to speak your own mind has been stolen from you. Until you fill in your postal vote, that is.









Earlier this year, Federal Shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, indicated that Labor is considering expanding section 18C, to include banning speech that same-sex marriage advocates find offensive. According to The Australian editor, Chris Merritt,

“Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or ­insulted by those who publicly ­defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.”



While criticising a recent article by journalist Paul Kelly, Marr alleges that,

“He seriously oversimplifies those conflicts but this is not the place to go into detail. Most are examples of citizens, governments and institutions fed up with church gay bashing. Equal marriage was a side issue.”

Marr doesn’t try to prove these ‘oversimplifications’, but immediately turns to the trusted ad homimen, those people must have been gay haters. Really?

Should the Marriage Act change, it automatically places people who affirm classical marriage on the wrong side of the law. It is inevitable that this will lead to all manner of anti-discrimination claims and litigations, maybe not straight away but they will come. How can one publicly teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman when the law says otherwise? How can one refuse their premises for a same-sex wedding? What will happen in our academic and educational institutions for anyone arguing for heterosexual only marriage? And let’s keep in mind, there are already individuals being threatened with legal action and with loss of employment, and the law hasn’t yet changed!

While David Marr would have his readers believe that Christians are only interested in self-preservation, the contrary is in fact true. Christians are concerned about freedoms for other groups. For example, when a local council recently refused the building of a Synagogue in Bondi, Christians leapt to support the local Jewish community.

Marr adds, “Calls for religious freedom are now rolling across the landscape, but they remain strangely vague. We never see a neat list of them.”

That’s not entirely true. Dean Smith’s Bill outlined potential protections. And earlier in the year, a Parliamentary Committee sought submissions in light of the exposure draft legislation from Brandis. Many groups, including the Aussie think tank, Freedom for Faith, made submissions and these arguments are available for anyone to read.

It is true however that the Government is yet to release details of any potential marriage legislation, and it is imperative for them to do so quickly. How can the Australian public make up their minds when they are unable to read what is being proposed?

I am not arguing for special protections, but am simply making the point that the evidence is already here, and it is already being played out in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere; changing the marriage law will change society and it will impact religious freedoms for millions of Australians.

Having said this, I don’t for a moment want anyone to get the idea that the health of Christianity depends upon the graces of Government or society. On this point I offer partial agreement with David Marr: religious organisations do enjoy certain privileges in society, and we ought not assume them. Having said that, religious organisations have done enormous good for Australian society, such that without them we would be intellectually, socially, morally, economically, and spiritually poorer. And do we want Australia to be the kind of nation that interferes with peoples religious freedoms? History is littered with Governments that have tried to control religion; do we really want to follow their examples?

It is rather ironic that David Marr can so glibly speak about ‘privilege’ while sweeping the ashes of religious freedoms under the carpet. Reshaping marriage means reshaping society and society’s laws and expectations, and reshaping the contour of religious freedom and practice. David Marr can argue otherwise, but it is the logical flow on effect, and we are already seeing this in practice around the world.

With all this talk about religious freedom one may be forgiven for thinking that this is the chief reason why Christians are arguing against changing the Marriage Act. This is not the case. Christians believe that the Genesis paradigm for marriage is a creation mandate that is a good for all humanity, not only for Christians. Until very recent, almost everyone accepted this view of marriage and believed it was good for society, but now we are aiming to persuade our fellow Aussies that it remains a good for society today. At the same time, it is imperative that we understand the kinds of changes that will issue from this watershed redefinition of marriage.

With a final swing of sarcasm, David Marr ponders the future: “Can’t their faith, they wonder, win a free debate? How will it survive bullying demands for protection and privileges? How will it survive the hatred in the air?”

I’m sure Mr Marr reads history and will know that Christianity often flourishes when the State or society derides it. Christians have nothing to fear. While Australia remains a pluralist society, we will seek to persuade people, as Christians have done so for millennia. We do so, being assured that our ultimate confidence is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not in Australian law. The future of Christianity is not contingent upon any current or future legislation. No matter the socio-ethical landscape, we know God will continue his work through the Gospel and Churches will continue and people will become Christians. This of course includes implications for how Christians love and serve our gay and lesbian neighbours, whether the definition of marriage changes or not. I trust we are already making every effort to befriend and support them, and to show them the love of Christ. For we remember that we too, in all manner of ways, once defined morality and truth in ways to fit with personal inclinations, and in that moment God graciously revealed Christ to us.

Whatever position one takes on this national survey, whether to vote or not, to say yes or no, no one is served well when journalists whitewash the facts that don’t suit them. Indeed, one might ask David Marr, “Can’t your faith win a free debate?”